Gay marriage plebiscite - Result YES to SSM

[Wahesh]

Sydney is the Thai Restaurant capital of the world. There's more Thai restaurants in Sydney than in Thaland. When we lived in Gladesville there was 11 Thai restaurants and there was only about 16 Restaurants in the whole suburb.

Hold on... there were 11 restaurants in Gladesville and 16 restaurants in which suburb??

 

[Wahesh]

I remembered when Newtown was hippy feral punk scum , you could rack up a line of filtly speed on a grubby bar table at the Oxford and no **** would blink. Then go to the towny off chops and get a root.

FKN LOL - I know ay. It was like that 15 years ago. Then all the trend-setters moved in... (not aimed at our beloved brother @Trendsetter).

 

[Wahesh]

And yet you only know of it from the attention it received

Good... because I'd rather be notified by that incident via the news rather than going there one night and see it which is offensive.

 

[CaptainJackson]

The whole mural thing is funny because of several reasons:

1) religious say the murals should be destroyed because they are offensive but the same religious people claim that left wing people get offended too easily (see Realist's posts above)

2) left wing people often talk about gender dysphoria, gender non-binary and homosexuality saying that even if something isn't intended as offensive, if it is offensive then it should be banned. At the same time they defend these murals even though they are considered offensive by many.

Of course this isn't all religious people and it isn't all left-wing SJWs, but the hypocrisy on this subject is quite entertaining.

So essentially you're saying all art should be banned? is that what you're getting at with these murals hacky?

The Abbott - Pell Mural

The ONLY general offensive thing I can see about this is abbotts hand down pells shorts, I concede that. However, this is the LGBT "revenge" mural on ABBOTT AND PELL NOT CHRISTIANITY. It has opened discussion, and if these real snowflakes took a moment to LISTEN to what the intended meaning behind this mural is, maybe they'd stop being offended and actually come to a compromise. The intention behind the mural is mocking abbott and pell that the SSM vote got up. Abbott and Pell have said a whole bunch of offensive, hurtful, insensitive, BIGOTED comments about the LGBT community, a whole bunch! And now that the LGBT have returned serve with ONE, WHOLE MIGHTY NUMBER OF ONE mural, with not forgetting an intended target of abbott and pell (NOT CHRISTIANITY), all the supporters of Pell are now up in arms?

Where the hell were they when there was a whole bunch of BULLSHIT coming out of Pell's mouth? Why didn't they shut him down?

The George Michael Mural

Is the George Michael mural similar in style to murals that depict Jesus or saints in Christianity? Yes, it most definitely is.

Is the intention to degrade Jesus? Well the simple answer is NO. Why do I say no, because George Michael is important to the LGBT community, he's a figure that is revered for all that he has suffered in the public eye and the many charitable actions he took out of the public spotlight. So the LGBT have a mural of a REVERED FIGURE in the same style of murals depicted of Jesus.

So why is it that these Christians find this mural offensive? Well the answer is very very simple, the answer is because George Michael is gay. Even in their victim status their bigotry is shone to the forefront. To the LGBT being gay is not a negative thing but to the Christian community it is. So would the LGBT have this mural with an intention to "attack" christians? Nope, it's just the style of a mural to represent a saint and George Michael is a saint to them. Much the same way Christians willy nilly decide who to make a saint, the LGBT have decided that George Michael is a saint to them.

In any case, once again this comes down to christians being bigoted about certain people because of the way they were born that way.


Both murals depict different facets of the lives of the LGBT community. On the one hand you have the LGBT mocking INDIVIDUALS who have attacked them for many decades and on the other hand you have an individual who has suffered as the LGBT has suffered and who is a well known figurehead of their suffering.

NOTHING TO DO WITH CHRISTIANITY. And why does the intention of the LGBT and painter count so much? Because THEY ARE THE ONES WHO PAINTED IT AND WHO IT REPRESENTS.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Hold on... there were 11 restaurants in Gladesville and 16 restaurants in which suburb??

11 Thai restaurants in Gladesville, 16 restaurants in total in Gladesville including Thai, Italian, Chinese, and Mexican.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

So essentially you're saying all art should be banned? is that what you're getting at with these murals hacky?

The Abbott - Pell Mural

The ONLY general offensive thing I can see about this is abbotts hand down pells shorts, I concede that. However, this is the LGBT "revenge" mural on ABBOTT AND PELL NOT CHRISTIANITY. It has opened discussion, and if these real snowflakes took a moment to LISTEN to what the intended meaning behind this mural is, maybe they'd stop being offended and actually come to a compromise. The intention behind the mural is mocking abbott and pell that the SSM vote got up. Abbott and Pell have said a whole bunch of offensive, hurtful, insensitive, BIGOTED comments about the LGBT community, a whole bunch! And now that the LGBT have returned serve with ONE, WHOLE MIGHTY NUMBER OF ONE mural, with not forgetting an intended target of abbott and pell (NOT CHRISTIANITY), all the supporters of Pell are now up in arms?

Where the hell were they when there was a whole bunch of BULLSHIT coming out of Pell's mouth? Why didn't they shut him down?

The George Michael Mural

Is the George Michael mural similar in style to murals that depict Jesus or saints in Christianity? Yes, it most definitely is.

Is the intention to degrade Jesus? Well the simple answer is NO. Why do I say no, because George Michael is important to the LGBT community, he's a figure that is revered for all that he has suffered in the public eye and the many charitable actions he took out of the public spotlight. So the LGBT have a mural of a REVERED FIGURE in the same style of murals depicted of Jesus.

So why is it that these Christians find this mural offensive? Well the answer is very very simple, the answer is because George Michael is gay. Even in their victim status their bigotry is shone to the forefront. To the LGBT being gay is not a negative thing but to the Christian community it is. So would the LGBT have this mural with an intention to "attack" christians? Nope, it's just the style of a mural to represent a saint and George Michael is a saint to them. Much the same way Christians willy nilly decide who to make a saint, the LGBT have decided that George Michael is a saint to them.

In any case, once again this comes down to christians being bigoted about certain people because of the way they were born that way.


Both murals depict different facets of the lives of the LGBT community. On the one hand you have the LGBT mocking INDIVIDUALS who have attacked them for many decades and on the other hand you have an individual who has suffered as the LGBT has suffered and who is a well known figurehead of their suffering.

NOTHING TO DO WITH CHRISTIANITY. And why does the intention of the LGBT and painter count so much? Because THEY ARE THE ONES WHO PAINTED IT AND WHO IT REPRESENTS.

I'm merely saying what is perceived here. It's a fact that it had nothing to do with Christianity but also a fact that Christians became offended by it. Personally I'd tell the Christians to suck it up and stop being snowflakes, but that has to go both ways. If Christians do something that isn't intended to offend anyone but still offends someone, then we should be telling the snowflakes to suck it up.

You can't have it both ways though. It's hypocritical to remove one thing because it's offensive while allowing the other.

Case in point being the recent incident with the substitute teacher who was suspended for misgendering someone. It was a complete mistake. He called a transgender (F to M) student a girl. The student corrected him, then he apologised. The student told the parent and the parent complained and now the teacher is suspended and facing the sack. It was completely unintentional but there are many pushing for this teacher to be fired to make an example.

Obviously in the legal spectrum we have section 18d to protect against the legal action if the discrimination wasn't intentional, but it doesn't protect against public and social vilification. Personally I think the Abbott/Pell artwork should have been altered to remove Abbott's hand from Pell's budgie smugglers, but I don't think the art should have been defaced after that. I'm also glad that the person who did it is being charged with vandalism.

I also don't think that anything should be destroyed just because it offends someone. I am against deliberate bullying. I'm against someone deliberately hounding a group, but if art is created that offends someone then suck it up. It's just art.

 

[Wahesh]

11 Thai restaurants in Gladesville, 16 restaurants in total in Gladesville including Thai, Italian, Chinese, and Mexican.

I know we're talking in the past but I would've thought Gladesville would've had more than 16 back then.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Other such examples:

- A museum in Amsterdam renamed many of its artworks because people complained that the titles were too offensive

- New York removing paintings depicting Native American's dealing with Pilgrims because people were offended by them

- Extreme left wing groups like Antifa destroying monuments because they don't like the people those monuments represent

- It's not just the extreme left attacking statues, many moderate left groups petitioned to have the Columbus statue and several others removed because they apparently praise genocide

- A London exhibit that represented the Human Zoo was censored because it had black people in cages which was too offensive

Art is often controversial. Personally I have no issue with the Pell/Abbott painting in its original form but I can understand why people wanted it covered up due to the obvious sexual nature and I can accept that. But art work is often controversial and often offensive. We can accept it or ban it. I prefer to accept it.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I know we're talking in the past but I would've thought Gladesville would've had more than 16 back then.

It depends how far you expand Gladesville to. Originally Gladesville was just one set of shops around the area that photo is from. Then it expanded to take up part of Ryde that has McDonald's and about 8 other restaurants, and also absorbed Boronia Park which has about 4 restaurants.

 

[CaptainJackson]

I'm merely saying what is perceived here. It's a fact that it had nothing to do with Christianity but also a fact that Christians became offended by it. Personally I'd tell the Christians to suck it up and stop being snowflakes, but that has to go both ways. If Christians do something that isn't intended to offend anyone but still offends someone, then we should be telling the snowflakes to suck it up.

You can't have it both ways though. It's hypocritical to remove one thing because it's offensive while allowing the other.

Case in point being the recent incident with the substitute teacher who was suspended for misgendering someone. It was a complete mistake. He called a transgender (F to M) student a girl. The student corrected him, then he apologised. The student told the parent and the parent complained and now the teacher is suspended and facing the sack. It was completely unintentional but there are many pushing for this teacher to be fired to make an example.

Obviously in the legal spectrum we have section 18d to protect against the legal action if the discrimination wasn't intentional, but it doesn't protect against public and social vilification. Personally I think the Abbott/Pell artwork should have been altered to remove Abbott's hand from Pell's budgie smugglers, but I don't think the art should have been defaced after that. I'm also glad that the person who did it is being charged with vandalism.

I also don't think that anything should be destroyed just because it offends someone. I am against deliberate bullying. I'm against someone deliberately hounding a group, but if art is created that offends someone then suck it up. It's just art.

You're speaking out side of this forum. I took your post to mean the posts in this thread.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

You're speaking out side of this forum. I took your post to mean the posts in this thread.

Yep. Speaking outside the forum. That's why I was pointing out how funny the whole issue is. But I was also picking on Realist for saying that snowflakes shouldn't be offended while getting offended at the same time.

 

[Wahesh]

Case in point being the recent incident with the substitute teacher who was suspended for misgendering someone. It was a complete mistake. He called a transgender (F to M) student a girl. The student corrected him, then he apologised. The student told the parent and the parent complained and now the teacher is suspended and facing the sack. It was completely unintentional but there are many pushing for this teacher to be fired to make an example.

Oh fuck that - that's a prime example of the world we live in. The teacher made an unintentional mistake then apologised... what more could be done FFS? The parent of that student should be hung for allowing her DAUGHTER to have a sex change.

Bloody morons everywhere.

 

[CaptainJackson]

Art is often controversial. Personally I have no issue with the Pell/Abbott painting in its original form but I can understand why people wanted it covered up due to the obvious sexual nature and I can accept that. But art work is often controversial and often offensive. We can accept it or ban it. I prefer to accept it.

Art is meant to stimulate and provoke interaction/thought and if used intelligently a great way to accomplish this.

One should be able to tell the difference between stimulating discussion and just plain offensive.

As an example these two murals currently in discussion compared to quite a long time ago when one artist had a little statue of Mary which he pissed on and claimed it was art.

I can't see how in any way shape or form pissing on a revered figure is meant to do anything but incite the intended crowd.

 

[Rodzilla]

Other such examples:

- A museum in Amsterdam renamed many of its artworks because people complained that the titles were too offensive

- New York removing paintings depicting Native American's dealing with Pilgrims because people were offended by them

- Extreme left wing groups like Antifa destroying monuments because they don't like the people those monuments represent

- It's not just the extreme left attacking statues, many moderate left groups petitioned to have the Columbus statue and several others removed because they apparently praise genocide

- A London exhibit that represented the Human Zoo was censored because it had black people in cages which was too offensive

Art is often controversial. Personally I have no issue with the Pell/Abbott painting in its original form but I can understand why people wanted it covered up due to the obvious sexual nature and I can accept that. But art work is often controversial and often offensive. We can accept it or ban it. I prefer to accept it.

also add the times something was left up because anti pc people would be offended that they were taken down

 

[Flanagun]

Other such examples:



- Extreme left wing groups like Antifa destroying monuments because they don't like the people those monuments represent

- It's not just the extreme left attacking statues, many moderate left groups petitioned to have the Columbus statue and several others removed because they apparently praise genocide

What is wrong with this? I'm all for removal of monuments that support and glorify our imperialist past. Arguments that people trying to take statues down are trying to erase history are complete bullshit IMO. They aren't trying to erase history, just to stop people from celebrating and getting misty eyed about elements of our past that are quite dark. There's a middle ground between fully embracing the past and denying it.

Tear down the statues of overbearing imperialist arseholes, I say. Why was that fucking idiot Columbus who couldn't even hold his compass the right way up worthy of being honoured anyway? You can remember seedy elements of your national history without glorifying them.

I'm all for groups that democratically lobby to remove outdated statues which no longer reflect our societal values.

 

[Wahesh]

I'm wondering if any of the statues we have in the city here are offensive to Indigenous Elders.

 

[Bob dog]

At least Australia is leading the world in diversity acceptance and multi culturism, still not perfect as the minority will always try to be the majority.
Now they need to look at Waratah Police gay hate culture of hunting suspected gay people.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I'm wondering if any of the statues we have in the city here are offensive to Indigenous Elders.

Yep. Statue of Captain Cook is considered offensive by many.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

What is wrong with this? I'm all for removal of monuments that support and glorify our imperialist past. Arguments that people trying to take statues down are trying to erase history are complete bullshit IMO. They aren't trying to erase history, just to stop people from celebrating and getting misty eyed about elements of our past that are quite dark. There's a middle ground between fully embracing the past and denying it.

Tear down the statues of overbearing imperialist arseholes, I say. Why does that fucking idiot Columbus who couldn't even hold his compass the right way up worthy of being honoured anyway. You can remember seedy elements of your national history without glorifying them.

I'm all for groups that democratically lobby to remove outdated statues which no longer reflect our societal values.

I can understand when a revolution overthrows a dictator and tears down statues of the dictator, but we're talking about a statue resembling a significant moment in the history of the country, and the history of European expansion and trade. Sure Columbus was a **** and was responsible for genocide, but he's still a significant figure in the history of the modern Western world. The statue raises discussion both good and bad. It's not erasing history but it is reducing the discussion of history by destroying a symbol of that history. Personally I'd have a statue of Hitler up in the middle of Germany to keep the memory fresh. Making efforts to erase symbols of the past only results in repetition of the past.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

It's the same as what ISIS did in the Middle East. They destroyed ancient Assyrian and Mesopotamian statues. Some of these statues were of ruthless tyrants and redundant Gods, but they were significant historic pieces.

These statues are the same. Sure they're more modern history but they are still pieces of our history that should stand for remembrance of both the good and the bad.