-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Serious Orlando mass shooting
- Thread starter Icing On Da Cake
- Start date
- Status
People tend not to know their history. I'm more familiar with early modern (15-18th centuries roughly) Ottoman Empire. That's probably not the first thing that comes to people's minds when you say "16-17th century Turkey", but back then society had quite different views about sexuality and some homosexual acts were considered quite normal and socially acceptable.
Case in point, here's an Ottoman Turkish poem I like (and my quick attempt at translation):
Tahammül mülkünü yıktın Hülâgü Han mısın kâfir
Aman dünyayı yaktın ateş-i suzan mısın kâfir
Kız oğlan nazı nazın şeh-levend âvâzı âvâzın
Belâsın bende bilmem kız mısın oğlan mısın kâfir
Ne ma'nî gösterir dûşundaki ol âteşin atlas
Ki ya'nî şu'le-i can-sûz-ı hüsn ü an mısın kâfir
Nedir bu gizli gizli âhlar çâk-i girîbanlar
Aceb bir şûha sen de âşık-ı nâlân mısın kâfir
Sana kimisi cânım kimi cânânım deyu söyler
Nesin sen doğru söyle can mısın canân mısın kâfir
Şerâb-ı âteşinin keyf-i rûyun şu'lelendirmiş
Bu hâletle çerâğ-ı meclis-i mestan mısın kafir
Niçin böyle sık sık bakarsın mirât-ı mücellaya
Meğer sen dahi kendi hüsnüne hayran mısın kafir
Nedîm-i zârı bir kâfir esir etmiş işitmiştim
Sen ol cellâd-ı din ol düşmen-i iman mısın kafir
----
You've transgressed the boundaries of tolerance, are you Hulagu Khan o infidel
Oh you've burnt down the world, are you a scorching fire o infidel
Your shyness is that of a girl, your shout is the shout of a young man
You're trouble, I don't know if you're a boy or a girl o infidel
What does the red sateen on your shoulders mean?
So are you a soul-burning fire of beauty o infidel
Why do you sigh discreetly and open your collars?
Are you the wailing lover of someone o infidel
Some call you "my life", some call you "my beloved"
Tell me what you are, life or beloved o infidel
The pleasure of wine has reddened your face
Are you the candle of a drunkards' gathering o infidel
Why do you look so often in the shining mirror?
Are you also an admirer of your beauty o infidel
I've heard that an infidel has taken captive Nedim the crying
Are you that executioner of religion, enemy of faith o infidel
Aman dünyayı yaktın ateş-i suzan mısın kâfir
Kız oğlan nazı nazın şeh-levend âvâzı âvâzın
Belâsın bende bilmem kız mısın oğlan mısın kâfir
Ne ma'nî gösterir dûşundaki ol âteşin atlas
Ki ya'nî şu'le-i can-sûz-ı hüsn ü an mısın kâfir
Nedir bu gizli gizli âhlar çâk-i girîbanlar
Aceb bir şûha sen de âşık-ı nâlân mısın kâfir
Sana kimisi cânım kimi cânânım deyu söyler
Nesin sen doğru söyle can mısın canân mısın kâfir
Şerâb-ı âteşinin keyf-i rûyun şu'lelendirmiş
Bu hâletle çerâğ-ı meclis-i mestan mısın kafir
Niçin böyle sık sık bakarsın mirât-ı mücellaya
Meğer sen dahi kendi hüsnüne hayran mısın kafir
Nedîm-i zârı bir kâfir esir etmiş işitmiştim
Sen ol cellâd-ı din ol düşmen-i iman mısın kafir
----
You've transgressed the boundaries of tolerance, are you Hulagu Khan o infidel
Oh you've burnt down the world, are you a scorching fire o infidel
Your shyness is that of a girl, your shout is the shout of a young man
You're trouble, I don't know if you're a boy or a girl o infidel
What does the red sateen on your shoulders mean?
So are you a soul-burning fire of beauty o infidel
Why do you sigh discreetly and open your collars?
Are you the wailing lover of someone o infidel
Some call you "my life", some call you "my beloved"
Tell me what you are, life or beloved o infidel
The pleasure of wine has reddened your face
Are you the candle of a drunkards' gathering o infidel
Why do you look so often in the shining mirror?
Are you also an admirer of your beauty o infidel
I've heard that an infidel has taken captive Nedim the crying
Are you that executioner of religion, enemy of faith o infidel
The poet is Nedim from late 17-early 18th century. He was a man with a religious education, someone close to the sultan and he was even a judge and a lecturer in an Islamic "university" (medrese) at some point. Yet it was completely normal and acceptable for such a man to write about his carnal, homosexual desires towards who was likely a Greek teenager and there was no serious backlash or anything of the sort. Poetry wasn't the only genre of art for this; paintings also could represent it (a few examples, nsfw 500 year old dicks). There's another literary genre called şehrengiz that describes travel to other cities from Istanbul. In addition to the journey and city, quite often the teenagers and boys of the visited city would be described. Likewise, there are quite a few advice books (nasihatname) from the 16th century onwards by Ottoman aristocrats (many who were Sharia jurists) on how to be a good, true gentleman. I don't have the books' pdf on this computer now so I can't pull quotes, but homosexual desires were casually approached and considered something a man would grow out of once he married and got a wife; still, an occasional escapade in a tavern with a teenage boy wouldn't be unusual. Sodomy was legally a crime, but it was a common and socially acceptable crime (just like drinking wine) and unless done very openly it was unusual for it to be punished. Of course, this being the early modern era there was no homosexual identity and also the social acceptance of sodomy was contingent on the age and status of the parties: two mature, adult men caught in the act would be considered scandalous and much more likely to be punished. On the other hand, teenagers who had yet to grow a beard (something like between 13~15/18~20) were called müşteha, "appetite-inducing". As just one example, Christian boys would be abducted/recruited from the Balkans for the janissary army and the most talented would be trained as statesmen in the palace of the sultan. The guardians of these boys would be eunuchs to "protect" them.
So why am I posting this? Sexuality and societal norms in the eastern/Islamic world were quite different from Christian Western European norms (in the case of Turkey, up until mid-19th century) and and to say "Islam" or Islamic societies have always been intolerant of homosexuality is historically wrong. I don't know too much about the Arabian peninsula or North Africa or Persia, but I wouldn't be surprised if history of sexuality was just as nuanced there. But all these get ignored by both the Western media and conservative Muslims because it fits neither narrative and remain confined to the academia.
Last edited:
Would like to point out I meant "in general" when referring to my points. There are always, of course, exceptions. (Not trying to isolate you, just wanted to clarify)
Also, (Sorry for double post) but how did this get from "Orlando mass shooting" to "racial profiling"?
Even if improving background checks would help deter violence, what about the gun show loophole (allows purchase with NO background check), or illegally purchased/smuggled guns?
Trying to fix an existing problem is good, but people as a whole need to look at all aspects of the causes and background of said problem to fully understand why it is happening.
(Australia also has a better standard of living across the board compared to the US, Rugi , which means that less people are unhappy/are undergoing hardship, which could explain why there are more mass shootings)
Even if improving background checks would help deter violence, what about the gun show loophole (allows purchase with NO background check), or illegally purchased/smuggled guns?
Trying to fix an existing problem is good, but people as a whole need to look at all aspects of the causes and background of said problem to fully understand why it is happening.
(Australia also has a better standard of living across the board compared to the US, Rugi , which means that less people are unhappy/are undergoing hardship, which could explain why there are more mass shootings)
Gun control is not the issue. ISIS is not the issue. Islam is not the issue.
The issue is that 49 people were killed, and 53 people were injured.
It's not HOW it happened. It's WHY it happened. Why did a person feel the need to open fire in a gay club in the first place?
Feel free to debate gun control and ISIS and whatever you want. But don't use the victims' lost lives as your way to prove a point. They're worth so much more than that.
The issue is that 49 people were killed, and 53 people were injured.
It's not HOW it happened. It's WHY it happened. Why did a person feel the need to open fire in a gay club in the first place?
Feel free to debate gun control and ISIS and whatever you want. But don't use the victims' lost lives as your way to prove a point. They're worth so much more than that.
The answer to why he wanted to do what he did is right in front of us. It's because he was part of ISIS.
"ISIS is not the issue."
ISIS is 100 percent the issue. They're the criminal. They're the culprit. They're the ones behind the attacks which we've been seeing for months, now years.
Wonder why these attacks catch us by surprise so often? It's because of comments like yours. Comments more interested in muddying the waters than trying to see patterns. Comments more interested in "respecting the victims", at the cost of understanding the killer and saving future lives. When the Islamic State attacks again, and catches us by surprise again, I only hope the ones who survive aren't going to avoid the true cause because they wanted to stick their fingers in their ears, yell "LALALALALA", and ignore the facts.
Last edited:
You clearly didn't get the point of my post.
Being a part of ISIS isn't the reason for opening fire in a gay night club. It's not even confirmed that the man had ties to ISIS outside of saying it, which anyone could easily do. But even if he is, there are reasons why he would want to be a part of ISIS that are the real justification in his mind.
The problem is that we live in a world where some people are raised to hate. Where men are taught that their gender, which was assigned to them at conception, makes them superior to half of the world. Where people are taught that others who are different from them are under them. Even people who actively support the rights of minorities of all kinds still have the predisposition to feel superior to others. It's not until people finally understand that they are no more or less important than the person next to them that stuff like this will stop happening.
So pardon me for getting upset that people are too preoccupied with pointing fingers at literally any source to take the time to mourn for those who we lost.
Being a part of ISIS isn't the reason for opening fire in a gay night club. It's not even confirmed that the man had ties to ISIS outside of saying it, which anyone could easily do. But even if he is, there are reasons why he would want to be a part of ISIS that are the real justification in his mind.
The problem is that we live in a world where some people are raised to hate. Where men are taught that their gender, which was assigned to them at conception, makes them superior to half of the world. Where people are taught that others who are different from them are under them. Even people who actively support the rights of minorities of all kinds still have the predisposition to feel superior to others. It's not until people finally understand that they are no more or less important than the person next to them that stuff like this will stop happening.
So pardon me for getting upset that people are too preoccupied with pointing fingers at literally any source to take the time to mourn for those who we lost.
ISIS, along with many Islamic nations, preaches that gay people should be executed, so being part of ISIS is literally one of the most obvious reasons that has ever existed for shooting gay people at a nightclub. If someone were part of ISIS, I'd be surprised if they didn't want to kill gay people. But apparently, as you have said, "Being a part of ISIS isn't the reason for opening fire in a gay nightclub."
Well, of course. We all have the luxury of closing our eyes, covering our ears, and shutting out the culprit, if that's our preferred style of mourning now. Then, when the next attack happens, we can mourn all over again. And the next attack can happen. And the next. And we can all "mourn", doing the exact same thing over and over again, expecting different results, as if that weren't the definition of idiocy. We can denounce hate, and then lie down, supine, as hate and its associated death toll washes over us with the regularity of ocean waves.
The evidence that the killer was a part of ISIS is convincing enough. The killer had a long terrorist history (FBI was suspicious of him for years) and a terrorist sympathizing father. He pledged allegiance in the middle of the shooting. ISIS took credit. ISIS even said they would attack Florida in advance, a mere three days before the attack, and nobody listened - I guess they didn't want to "point fingers" - and then ISIS actually did do it. And then they gloated about it on Twitter. They're going to gloat again. They're going to gloat as long as we remain committed to doing everything but trying to stop them.
Well, of course. We all have the luxury of closing our eyes, covering our ears, and shutting out the culprit, if that's our preferred style of mourning now. Then, when the next attack happens, we can mourn all over again. And the next attack can happen. And the next. And we can all "mourn", doing the exact same thing over and over again, expecting different results, as if that weren't the definition of idiocy. We can denounce hate, and then lie down, supine, as hate and its associated death toll washes over us with the regularity of ocean waves.
The evidence that the killer was a part of ISIS is convincing enough. The killer had a long terrorist history (FBI was suspicious of him for years) and a terrorist sympathizing father. He pledged allegiance in the middle of the shooting. ISIS took credit. ISIS even said they would attack Florida in advance, a mere three days before the attack, and nobody listened - I guess they didn't want to "point fingers" - and then ISIS actually did do it. And then they gloated about it on Twitter. They're going to gloat again. They're going to gloat as long as we remain committed to doing everything but trying to stop them.
Last edited:
My thoughts:
On the incident:
This is absolutely horrible... Only my deepest condolences and strongest prayers for the affected and their families. Hope that the hearts of people the world over can deliver some assurance to those in the midst of this atrocity.
On the politics:
-absolutely an act of terrorism
-absolutely an act of hate-- against the gay community, and against America.
-absolutely a mass shooting affected by our gun regulations
-absolutely an incident involving Islam and religion
-We cannot ignore that lax gun laws are a root cause, and that common sense regulations at least at the ridiculous bare minimum proposed by the president are needed.
-We cannot ignore that there are problematic teachings of from-the-book Islam, and in other religions, such that violence is inevitably born from members of groups that literally interpret/abide by passages centuries old and unchanged by the progress emerging from bettering human civilization.
-We can hold ourselves to a higher standard than what Jesus or Mohammed could have expected of their peoples at their times.
-There are fundamental problems in Islam (and Christianity as well) that we as religious people cannot afford to ignore, and not take responsibility for.
-singling out Islam to be discrimated against is not the answer, but ignoring and not discussing the problems with Islam is not the answer either.
-We cannot ignore that this was also a hate crime on a massive scale-- and must look straight into the face of those forces that unfortunately invite violence and other discrimination against lgbtq+ both incidentally and systemically.
Cultural anecdote--
Just for my own clarification from someone more knowledgeable. I read an article about a statement from the killer's father that two men kissing was a trigger for him-- but I thought inter-male kissing was common in middle eastern cultures. Please fill me in.
On the incident:
This is absolutely horrible... Only my deepest condolences and strongest prayers for the affected and their families. Hope that the hearts of people the world over can deliver some assurance to those in the midst of this atrocity.
On the politics:
-absolutely an act of terrorism
-absolutely an act of hate-- against the gay community, and against America.
-absolutely a mass shooting affected by our gun regulations
-absolutely an incident involving Islam and religion
-We cannot ignore that lax gun laws are a root cause, and that common sense regulations at least at the ridiculous bare minimum proposed by the president are needed.
-We cannot ignore that there are problematic teachings of from-the-book Islam, and in other religions, such that violence is inevitably born from members of groups that literally interpret/abide by passages centuries old and unchanged by the progress emerging from bettering human civilization.
-We can hold ourselves to a higher standard than what Jesus or Mohammed could have expected of their peoples at their times.
-There are fundamental problems in Islam (and Christianity as well) that we as religious people cannot afford to ignore, and not take responsibility for.
-singling out Islam to be discrimated against is not the answer, but ignoring and not discussing the problems with Islam is not the answer either.
-We cannot ignore that this was also a hate crime on a massive scale-- and must look straight into the face of those forces that unfortunately invite violence and other discrimination against lgbtq+ both incidentally and systemically.
Cultural anecdote--
Just for my own clarification from someone more knowledgeable. I read an article about a statement from the killer's father that two men kissing was a trigger for him-- but I thought inter-male kissing was common in middle eastern cultures. Please fill me in.
Last edited:
Wait where did you find that info? I don't recall that being mentioned anywhere, either on major news outlets or even wikipedia. I'm no expert on Middle-Eastern customs, but it seems to me like that would be extremely rare.
Also remember that the shooter was born in NYC and may have not had any exposure to Middle-Eastern customs outside of propaganda films that he may or may not have viewed, and while his parents, I believe are of Afghan descent, they may have adopted western customs in raising their child.
The man also claimed he had ties to the Boston Marathon Bombers, which is why the FBI investigated him in the first place and they concluded he was fabricating the story, which is why he was cleared from the FBI watch list. It's almost as if he had delusions of grandeur and of being a part of something bigger than himself and he wanted to make sure this attack wasn't seen as just a crazy homophobe with a gun. No one in his family has any knowledge of him ever doing anything that would suggest a tie to ISIS, and given that he was under FBI investigation for a while, you'd think they would have found it too if it was there. But in the end, a crazy homophobe with a gun is all he really was.
As to the Islam and ISIS part... If it was indeed inspired more by religion generally than homophobia specifically, which I've already said I doubt, he's still just a self-radicalized lone wolf. Who may have been inspired by ISIS. Probably would be. But there's a significant difference in how you make good policy decisions in response to the two possibilities.
ISIS did not take credit btw... they have stated standard things about supporting the attack and that any attack on the west done in the name of ISIS has their blessing and that you don't need to ask for organizing help.
As to the Islam and ISIS part... If it was indeed inspired more by religion generally than homophobia specifically, which I've already said I doubt, he's still just a self-radicalized lone wolf. Who may have been inspired by ISIS. Probably would be. But there's a significant difference in how you make good policy decisions in response to the two possibilities.
ISIS did not take credit btw... they have stated standard things about supporting the attack and that any attack on the west done in the name of ISIS has their blessing and that you don't need to ask for organizing help.
In other news, if this is true then I'm even more sad
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-nightclub-shooting-20160613-snap-story.html
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-nightclub-shooting-20160613-snap-story.html
Fyi I think the fact that both gun wielding and the ability to safely gun wield without being attacked by others, including the cops, is a privilege of the majority, is a huge issue that is relevant to both sides. The fact that the cops won't lose their guns doesn't make me sympathetic to gun control as a means to protect queer people either
I also do not think gun control will stop hate crimes against LGBTQ people, especially if you look at the typical situations involved
Which is why I think it's weird gun control is the angle here when it's usually mentally ill people or whatever
I also do not think gun control will stop hate crimes against LGBTQ people, especially if you look at the typical situations involved
Which is why I think it's weird gun control is the angle here when it's usually mentally ill people or whatever
I can't really tell what's going on in this thread because a lot of posts seem to be deleted, but in short:
- Don't let homophobia lead to Islamophobia
- "If the victims had guns" is a terrible argument. They were at a fucking club, no one needs guns at a club. Especially one that sells alcohol.
- I don't think all guns should be banned, but I'm not sure why any normal citizen needs a high powered assault weapon.
- If you want to champion against homosexuality, we should start that here. Way too many posters are homophobic.
- Trying to simplify the issue is a disrespect to all those who were harmed. It is complex. No other way around it.
How many mass shootings has Australia had since they enforced strict gun controls in 1996? zero
How many mass shootings has modern Japan had? zero
Is the number of gun deaths closely associated with guns per capita? You betcha
There is little room for argument against the cold numbers that show that countries with stricter gun regulations are safer. (and, proportionally safer relative to how many fewer guns they have)
And the idea that an "armed citizenry" is what prevents government tyranny is completely laughable. An "armed militia" barking at the most powerful modern military, which lols at basically any other military on the planet, is absolutely adorable.
But comparing the "armed citizenry" to the US armed forces is more like comparing a Neon Tetra to a Great White... or a Megalodon...
What keeps the government in line is human decency and the power of the human voice-- definitely not guns.
While I understand the sentiment jumpluff voiced about privilege of the majority class, bigots, criminals, mentally ill--any and all groups you can think of that could commit violent crimes--will be a lot less able to commit gun crimes when it's a lot harder to get a gun. As mentioned, this is simply the black and white of the numbers we see comparing to other countries, such as your own. While I understand your concern about Law enforcement, I don't think you can target law enforcement as the main perpetrator of LGBTQ hate crimes, and law enforcement have proven themselves more than capable of committing unwarranted violence on minorities without weapons. In the case of law enforcement, I think systemic social, cultural, and organizational issues are the core part of what needs to change, rather than the simple decision of whether they should carry-- though I would admit that guns have enabled or been involved with a fair share of police-related incidents with minorities...
How many mass shootings has modern Japan had? zero
Is the number of gun deaths closely associated with guns per capita? You betcha
There is little room for argument against the cold numbers that show that countries with stricter gun regulations are safer. (and, proportionally safer relative to how many fewer guns they have)
And the idea that an "armed citizenry" is what prevents government tyranny is completely laughable. An "armed militia" barking at the most powerful modern military, which lols at basically any other military on the planet, is absolutely adorable.
But comparing the "armed citizenry" to the US armed forces is more like comparing a Neon Tetra to a Great White... or a Megalodon...
What keeps the government in line is human decency and the power of the human voice-- definitely not guns.
While I understand the sentiment jumpluff voiced about privilege of the majority class, bigots, criminals, mentally ill--any and all groups you can think of that could commit violent crimes--will be a lot less able to commit gun crimes when it's a lot harder to get a gun. As mentioned, this is simply the black and white of the numbers we see comparing to other countries, such as your own. While I understand your concern about Law enforcement, I don't think you can target law enforcement as the main perpetrator of LGBTQ hate crimes, and law enforcement have proven themselves more than capable of committing unwarranted violence on minorities without weapons. In the case of law enforcement, I think systemic social, cultural, and organizational issues are the core part of what needs to change, rather than the simple decision of whether they should carry-- though I would admit that guns have enabled or been involved with a fair share of police-related incidents with minorities...
Last edited:
talk about your pet causes somewhere else, the shooting is a sensitive topic and soapboxing from either political persuasion is unwelcome in this thread. I also would prefer if the shooter were not discussed at all, especially in light of his intentions being as muddled as they are. nobody on this website is going to be the one to solve mass shootings, or LGTB hatred, or islamic radicalism for that matter, so just keep it under your collective hats until the blood in the streets has dried some. thanks
ps I realize this is somewhat hypocritical given my history of making jokes about RealAssTragedies but this post, and this thread for that matter, aren't for me anyways
ps I realize this is somewhat hypocritical given my history of making jokes about RealAssTragedies but this post, and this thread for that matter, aren't for me anyways
A man who was at the shooting closed the door on fleeing people, saying he was trying to prevent the shooter from escaping. When the interviewer asked if he realized people were trying to get out it's very obvious he had no idea what he was doing. This guy probably caused the deaths of more people there by preventing them from escaping.
this disgusts me...what kind of cowardice...
we now interrupt your regularly scheduled argument between reactionaries who think contemporary america is some fictionalized wild-west situ where the only thing that might dissuade mass murder and terrorism is the threat of being counterblasted by a shirtless male stripper in a cowboy hat wielding his own military grade assault weapon and liberals who take the opportunity to stand up on a bloody soapbox and smugly told-you-so the stupid populace interspersed by jumpluff posts like a vision to my sore eyes to attempt to pin at least SOME blame on a random dude being interviewed after the massacre. fuck that video guy lol, lets all take bets on how many people he, personally, killed by his blunder:
8
is my guess,lets get some more up in this thread
vadredit: dont actually guess plz
8
is my guess,
vadredit: dont actually guess plz
Last edited by a moderator:
He might have killed a good deal of people via his actions; what is more important however is the the assailant(self-radicalized or not) who perpetrated the crime, and discussing/understanding the how and why; this doesn't mean discussing gun control in a larger sense is off base though, at least to me. Because, a person with clear mental issues(he beat his wife, how did this not set off red flags) is getting access to.....a gun? In which other civilized country would this be possible? Not everything has to be political, guns and their control don't have to be a liberal/republican thing; the issues of gun violence is an issue in america as a whole, and islamophobic comments like "this is why we should support trump' certainly don't help at all.
A-fucking-men. Thank you for this.
Before I begin, I just want to put out a couple disclaimers:
1. I'm not attacking you personally. Your post just happens to be the one I read and I'm sure others feel the same way you do in this thread. This is a response to everyone who shares the same thoughts.
2. I do definitely agree/acknowledge that his religious upbringing probably contributed to the murderer's deranged sense of entitlement, to make him think that he can end his others lives based on what he was taught and the ideology he was surrounded by.
HOWEVER
As part of the lgbt community, I'm gonna say it. I am so sick and tired of bullshit comments like this being littered all over the internet. So many people and so much of the media are so Islamophobic that you guys just want to use this tragedy as an excuse to fuel further hatred towards Islam or to make this whole thing about ISIS. It isn't about bloody ISIS or Islam. He was a lone wolf. You can claim that the murderer was part of ISIS or practised Islam all you want, but what if I told you he was also part of the LGBT community? What if I told you that he was a semi-regular at Pulse (the night club he shot up) for three years? What if he frequently used Grindr (gay dating app)? What if I told you he was a closet homosexual, and that his self-hatred and hatred for gays was manifested by the society he lived in?
The issue with posts like yours is that it detracts our attention from the actual issue at hand. Here we are discussing about extremists when it isn't even about that. I find it concerning that so many people are so narrow minded with their hatred for Islam, that in the context of the Orlando shooting, this is all they can talk about. We should be talking about the inherent homophobia that exists within the US, as well as the lack of gun control within the US.
Again, the real issue here isn't Islam/Muslims. The real issue at hand, and that issue is homophobia. I need to remind you that homophobia is not only isolated to Islam, but it's an issue that is shared across numerous religions, all races, and all society. Why are we using this tragedy to blame one religion? If we want to point fingers, then the entire society is to be blamed. Homophobia/transphobia is rampant because much of the US society promotes anti-LGBT values. Men in black suits sending out all of these hate propaganda against the LGBT community, projecting the notion that it's okay to treat LGBT like subhumans. People in fancy robes handing out flyers about how evil LGBT people are. These seemingly passive actions against the LGBT community undoubtedly shapes the way people think and act.
I need to remind you that acts of this kind of violence against the LGBT community has occured for decades, particularly in the 60s-80s. The Orlando shooting is NOT an isolated case of violence against the LGBT community. Acts of violence against the LGBT has been carried out by people of all racial and religious backgrounds, but it's pretty convenient to ignore that fact and make this all about ISIS and Islam and what terrible human beings they are, because they're the hot topic right now hey. We need to use this tragedy to look at the bigger picture (i.e. both homophobia/transphobia AND gun laws).
The Orlando shooting should be about raising awareness on discrimination against any minorities, lgbt, race, whatever. More than that, I feel like this event should be used to preach about love and compassion and kindness and acceptance. We shouldnt be using this as an opportunity to fuel more hatred, especially one that is uncalled for.
p.s. I forgot to talk about this but I need to mention this, had it been a Christian radical, you can bet that the media would not have bothered to bring it up. You wouldn't see "Christian radical shoots up gay club" in size 36, bold font, plastered all over the front page. Also, you can't tell me that it isn't concerning that a lot of the media has reported this case as "[Muslim/Radical Muslim/Man with links to ISIS] attacks nightclub", with minimal mention of it being a GAY night club.
Last edited by a moderator:
Isn't that literally what happened a year ago?
I can get behind what else you're saying here. But the USA has made great strides in acceptance recently. It's not perfect and I'm not saying we should stop, but just because the WBC hands out propaganda doesn't mean that that's what a majority of people think. You're saying that the reason this guy killed 50 people is because "American culture" made him hate himself enough to kill 50 other people in his community? If I was feeling oppressed and victimized by a country, the last place I'd want to kill people would be those that have similar views to mine.
Last edited by a moderator:
Media turning the main focus from gun laws into Muslim business / LGBTQ rights. How convenient.
As Rugi have said, pretty much everywhere outside the USA were criticizing the gun laws, rather than talking about LGBTQ stuff.
"Guns are to protect us" is a very Republican thing. It doesn't really protect you. It makes your society more dangerous because people can kill people efficiently.
"If we don't have guns, how do we protect ourselves from the government?"
Why do you need to protect yourself from the government? Why would your government kill you randomly?
Seriously, if your government is against you, there would be hydropumps or tanks everywhere, so your guns don't really do a thing anyway.
As Rugi have said, pretty much everywhere outside the USA were criticizing the gun laws, rather than talking about LGBTQ stuff.
"Guns are to protect us" is a very Republican thing. It doesn't really protect you. It makes your society more dangerous because people can kill people efficiently.
"If we don't have guns, how do we protect ourselves from the government?"
Why do you need to protect yourself from the government? Why would your government kill you randomly?
Seriously, if your government is against you, there would be hydropumps or tanks everywhere, so your guns don't really do a thing anyway.
- Status