sparkindarkness: (Default)
 Someone does or says something that is grossly homophobic. Sometimes there’s outrage, sometimes there isn’t – either way there’s a number of people who remember that and the label “homophobe” is now attached to that person. A number of people, especially GBLT people, are not too pleased with them and will avoid them if possible.

 Through a need to salve their conscience, improve their reputation or even (most incredibly rarely) a genuine need to be a better person, the homophobe asks how they can make it right. What do they have to do to no longer be considered a homophobe?

 Well, your first problem is that people have different metrics – so don’t assume that just because you’ve pleased one GBLT person or organisation that everyone else is going to sign off on that.

 But if you’re going to ask me what it would take for me to not consider you a bigot any more? Well, that’s going to vary from event to event but it would, at minimum, include:

 An actual apology (not a non-pology or excuse and one that admits you are actually wrong. And an apology alone won’t even come close to me not considering you a bigot) that also doesn’t call your actions a “mistake”.

 Not repeating your behaviour

 Using any power you have to prove you have changed (politicians making pretty speeches but not actually changing policy or votes? Homophobes playing the PR game)

No appeals for “a second chance” or “trust” you are owed neither

 Not profiting from your apology or your gestures of redemption

 These are the beginning, the bare minimum, before I will even consider no longer thinking of you as a homophobe

 But, y’know what? Sometimes I don’t have an answer. Sometimes I really can’t think of anything you can do. Or nothing you can do until an opportunity arises that may, indeed, never arise.

 Yes, that means your homophobic words and deeds may have me and people like me deciding you’re a nasty bigot we want nothing to do with and there’s nothing you can do to change that.


 This is not my problem. These are the consequences of your actions; if you are a bigot, people will treat you as and regard you as a bigot. And even if you want to change, no-one’s obliged to treat you differently until they’re satisfied that you deserve it – which may never happen. That’s not their fault. You are the one who showed your bigoted arse. People are treating you accordingly – no-one owes your forgiveness, no-one owes you an easy way out. No-one owes you ANY way out. You can ask how you can make it right – but sometimes you can’t, and if you can, it’s not my job to give you a plan on how to do that.

 Here’s the thing, it’s not actually my job to pave the road to your redemption.

 You’re the arsehole here. You, carelessly at best and wilfully at worst, displayed your bigoted arse for all to see.

 You hurt people, those people are pissed at you – it’s not their job to forgive and forget just because you want them to. It’s not their job to trust you again. It’s not their job to play nicely with you. They don’t have to “forget” or “get over” what you’ve done. No, no matter how many “milestones” you think you’ve achieved or how much you’re congratulating yourself on the awesome progress you’ve made in not being an arsehole and not even if you have a full crowd of dancing supporters who are willing to sing your praises.

 They forgive only when – and if – they want to and think they should. And if you ask “what will it take to be forgiven?” and get the answer “there’s nothing you can do.” Then so be it, you don’t get forgiven. I repeat this because it can’t be emphasised enough: it’s not actually my job to pave the road to your redemption. I have no duty to rehabilitate you, to repair your reputation, to sing your praises or to try and erase your misdeeds. I have no duty to help you to do any of those things for yourself either.

 If I call you a homophobe, this isn’t me volunteering to be your personal life coach to be a better person, nor am I volunteering to be your PR manager to guide you on how to make all the criticism go away. I’m certainly not volunteering to approve your conscience-salving gestures.

 You are not owed a step-by-step guide for being absolved of your bigotry. You’re not owed absolution at all. Sometimes you’re going to have to live with it, sometimes you’re going to have to accept that the evil shit you said/did is going to follow you for the rest of your days.

 Deal with it. Because I have zero obligation to embrace a scorpion to give it a chance to prove to me it won’t sting me. Again.


sparkindarkness: (Default)

It’s happened again. Well it’s never stopped happening. Tumblr, where common sense goes to die and fail goes to breed and thrive, had a rather reasonable post on what counts as allydom and what counts as the actions of a decent human being. And of course, we had a string of allies saying how “meaaaan” they were and they’re alienating people etc etc ad nauseum.

 And then there’s Chris Kluwe’s rather awesome response to homophobic arseholery that should be embossed in gold. And what happened? While most have cheered, I’ve seen people gasping because of the swearing and disrespect. Really. I think his own words nicely sums that up. Now I could even see the point on “cockmonster” kinda, but swearing and disrespect? Seriously? Because the bigots bigotry wasn’t already rude and disrespectful?

 And, of course, in response to be my criticism of the raging bigots who keep occupying the equality’s minister’s seat, I’ve been chided that I need to “calm down” and wait and “engage” with the nasty homophobic bigots otherwise how will we convince them to support us! Oh I am sabotaging us!

 And I say fuck it. Yes I have been mean and nasty which means, apparently, a load of people are now going to spit their dummies out and no longer support GBLT equality.

 Really I would question how much of an “ally” anyone is if they will decide that the entire movement of GBLT equality – or, indeed, any equality movement – is no longer worth their time or attention if one person who belongs to that group is unpleasant to them.

Even beyond unpleasant – even if I were a rapist, a murderer, a paedophile, a bad karaoke singer or someone who persistently knocks on your door of a Sunday morning to try and sell you something – it is still patently ridiculous, enormously arrogant and exceedingly selfish to dismiss an entire equality movement and an entire marginalised group because one of them isn’t a very nice person. Really, this is the bar you put on your support? This is the standard we have to meet to be worth of equality? Absolutely impeccable behaviour from all of us at all times?

 This doesn’t sound like someone who cares over much about equality or justice to me.

 But, beyond that, I think being all kinds of unpleasant is quite necessary to achieve true equality and to see who is actually allies.

 See, I want a equality, I want justice and in that struggle I very much wants straight people to support me.

 Full stop.

I don’t want a “but” there. I don’t want a “so long as” tacked on the end.

I don’t want people to support my rights – so long as I behave

I don’t want people to fight for my equality – so long as I’m nice and polite.

I don’t want my equality, my rights, my respect as a human being, contingent on my playing nice and following certain rules.

I don’t want to “engage” with people. I don’t want to have a dialogue.

I don’t want to have to convince people I am deserving of humanity.

I don’t want to BUY respect with praise and cookies and headpats.

I’m not asking for justice, I’m demanding it.

Equality is not a gift to be given, it is a debt that is owed.

Read More

Also really relevent right here

sparkindarkness: (Default)
*deep breaths* my temper is frayed on this one. I’ve just come across a blog post by a straight person who is most displeased that the GBLT community is not more up in arms and outraged by the group beating of Brandon White in Atlanta. She wanted to see more outpouring of… I don’t even know what. Outrage, grief, anger, shock? She judges us for not reacting more forcefully to the gay bashing and not paying more attention to it.

And I wish it was just another failed ally pulling this privileged shit, but sadly, she’s not alone.

What did you expect? It was a brutal gay bashing? Yeah then and every other day of the week. You don’t get it. blinkered straight folks, this isn’t unusual or freaky or weird or shocking. This is a normal day. This shit happens every day. Every bloody day – and yes as bad and much much worse.

I have yet to publish a bad news list that didn’t contain shocking violence. Mob attacks, stitches, beating, broken bones, concussion, rape, rape with objects, burning people with hot water, setting them on fire and, of course, murder. Beatings, stabbings, shootings, burnings, arson. Over and over again.

Look. Look at the list. Read them. It happens over and over and over again

And in my list of links for the next round up which I’ll get to once I have the strength for it I have at murders, mob attacks, mass arrests and a 16 year old kid with a broken jaw. And that’s just a brief scan of the links in the folder.

NONE of these cases get vast amounts of attention from the GBLT blogosphere or GBLT news sources. They’re reported on once, maybe twice and then we move on. If developments happen – like suspects caught or a court case develops, it is reported on – that’s about it. Even murders rarely get massive outpourings of shock and horror from us any more. There’s too many of them for more and we’re too inured to violence for a greater response.

Read More
sparkindarkness: (Default)
Roland Martin tweeted some homophobic bullshit.

And yes, it was homophobic bullshit. No, I’m not debating that, certainly not with straight people. I’ve spent the last couple of weeks editing my twitter and RSS feeds to get all the straight folks lecturing gay folk about what is and isn’t homophobia out of my face. It took a depressingly long time.

His words were homophobic. Not only were they homophobic, they were violently homophobic – and from a man who defended Tracy “lets stab gay children” Morgan. So even if I was inclined to offer some benefit of the doubt (which no straight person is OWED for their homophobic bullshit) I don’t think any gay man can be expected to offer it to this man. In fact, I’ll go further, expecting us to is homophobic bullshit in and of itself.

But, in the aftermath of another homophobic fool opening his mouth I find myself truly moved to emotional response by the many many Clueless Straight People who were positively falling over themselves with their urge to help me and all other silly silly gay men.

Ah, dear clueless, privileged straight people – I graciously accept your generous attempts to educate gay men as to what is and is not homophobia. I can only imagine how bright and shining your spirits are that you are driven to guide us through and issue you are clearly far more knowledgeable about than we.

In the face of such learned and enlightened guidance I find myself positively driven to urge you, from the very depths of my heart, to shut the fuck up.

Here’s a handy-dandy, ultra-quick guide to whether or not something is homophobic: do they gay people say it is? Yes? THEN IT IS! See? Simples! This would be because we’ve been . And you are not qualified to spot homophobia because not only have you not been stabbed with it every day of your lives (therefore completely unable to spot it so much of the time) but our whole society has a whole damn culture of excusing, accepting and promoting homophobia. And the proof lies in the huge, inordinate number of you Clueless Fools queuing up to school gay people on whether or not Roland’s words (or any one of the many many many many many oh my GODS many celebrities who think homophobia is so damn clever/funny/witty/whatever) are actually homophobic or not.

We know homophobia when we experience it. We have suffered from it. We will face the consequences of it. We have the scars from it, the fears from it, the damage from it and we are the bodies scattered in its bloody wake. Your input is not needed or welcome. Your education is unnecessary. Your instruction is unwanted. Your condescending “advice” adds nothing except to remind us that the homophobic arsehole who opened his mouth is not alone.

Read More
sparkindarkness: (Default)
Ok I'm going to have a rant about that ridiculous bonus Stephen Hester was offered.

Stephen Hester, as chief executove of the Royal Bank of Scotland (which, after monumentally screwing up, has been bailed out and is now 82% owned by the tax payer - yet for reasons unknown it's apparently wrong for the government to interfere in how it is run) has been offered an annual bonus of about £963,000. A bonus. On top of his annual salary of £1,200,000. Last year he received a bonus of £2,000,000.

And yes, he's turned it down. Wow, the man has a tiny idea about PR and was facing a forced vote in the commons and generally becoming the most hated man in the country. So? next year qwhen we're not paying attention he'll probably pocket an even larger one.

Him turning it down or not isn't the issue. The issue is that this man was offered it in the first place when he works for a bank that is nearly entirely tax payer owned. In fact, screw that, the mere fact he was offered that -whether private sector or tax payer sector - is obscene. In fact, not even that, the mere fact he earns, even withotu bonuses, £1.2 million every year is ridiculously obscene.

And what's further obscene is the idea that refusing this bonus would be so unreasonable that the government faced the entire board of RBS spitting their dummies out and stomping off if it weren't paid

And what's further obscene is Dr Ruth Bender, Cranfield School of Management describing this ridiculous payment as "reasonable". Reasonable?! The median salary in the UK in 2008 was £20,801. To earn as much money as Stephen Hester earns in one year, the median worker would have to work for 58 years. And that's without his bonuses. What diseased culture have we produced that calls such an income "reasonable".

Read More
sparkindarkness: (Default)
Yes it’s time to say it again. Not particularly because I think it’ll stop people calling me it, but at least it lets me vent, and why have a blog if you can’t vent when you need it?

Do not call me queer. Yes I’ve said it before and I’ll probably say it 100 times more. Do not call me Queer. I don’t care what the word means to you or how you identify or why – that’s your identity and your label, not mine. Do not use it to refer to me.

And don’t try to poke or police me into accepting the label. Don’t make assumptions about me because I refuse to use your preferred terms.

My using the word gay doesn’t make me conformist. It doesn’t mean I’m not an activist. It doesn’t mean I secretly want to be street. It doesn’t mean I’m not REALLY fighting for equality. It doesn’t mean I’m not a real gay man. It doesn’t mean I don’t REALLY face discrimination or that I don’t know what prejudice and bigotry really means. Pack up your shaming and get the fuck out if you think these things because I am beyond sick of it.

To me that word is attached to my bones that ache because they’ve been broken. That word is attached to the scars on my arms and my back. That is a word of my nightmares and memories that still haunt me. I take a cocktail of pills to keep my brain working because of the echoes of that word. You have no right to decide I should use and claim this word. You have no right to demand I just swallow that and “get over it” and move on so I can follow your word choice.

My life. My being. My labels. Respect them or get out, simple as.
sparkindarkness: (Default)

It's that simple.

No, I don't care what the “context” is. The context of these words is that they're dehumanising, lessening, othering terms that serve to reduce people, express contempt and plug into a history of hatred, violence and oppression. That is the context of these words. They bring their own context.

When you use them you don't divorce them from that context. You just spread the context – and the more you use them the more you make that context ok and acceptable. The more you present the idea that it's ok to refer to us by demeaning and dehumanising terms – which means it's ok to demean and dehumanise us – ok to present us as lesser, as other, as beneath. Whatever your reason is for talking about the f@gs doesn't change that you have put that word out there, with its context and its meaning, doesn't change that you, by your repetition, have added to making that word and the sentiment behind it acceptable.

And it's not ok.

And your context and your excuses don't help those who have had these used against us, whose flight or fight instinct kicks in the minute we see them, who have memories with teeth that are always waiting to ambush us. Your excuses don't prevent the panic, the fear, the worry, the constant looking over our shoulders

Read More
sparkindarkness: (Default)
Rick Santorum has whined on about how he's a homophobe - as usual. But he also calls for people to respect his feelings in being a homophobe Can't we respect that he feels differently from us?

Ok, just in case anyone has even the slightest doubt - let me make this abundantly clear. I do not respect bigots. And I do not respect people who do not respect me. And no-one who thinks I am anything less than entirely equal to straight people respects me. Anyone who thinks I am less than straight people, anyone who thinks my relationships are less than straight people's, anyone who thinks I am inherently more reprehensible than straight people or anyone who thinks my family, love and life is anyway lacking compared to straight people does NOT respect me. They do not.

Read More
sparkindarkness: (STD)

In particular parents, my mother’s brother, his wife, their daughter, and their grandchildren who decided to stop around at MY house yesterday.

The door was locked, the door to MY house we might add. Yes, I know you have a key. That’s for emergencies. That’s for “we haven’t heard from Sparky for 8 days and we fear he may have fallen down the stairs dragging Beloved with him and they both hit their head” kind of emergency. That’s for “Sparky has locked himself out and needs help” emergency. That’s for “Sparky and Beloved have gone gallivanting and not fed the cat” emergency.

It’s not for “we tried to open the door and it was locked so we just unlocked it and went in without knocking” NOT!Emergency.

Look, I’m not going to say “you’re always welcome” because that’s ridiculous. We don’t say that in our family. It doesn’t need to be said, it‘s assumed. You don’t ring ahead, you don’t plan, you don’t look for an invite. Any one of us will happily show up on the doorstep of anyone else at a moment’s notice. But a knock would be nice. ESPECIALLY if the door is locked.

Yes, you walked in on us rather more than half naked (all I can say is thank gods you didn’t arrive 15 minutes later). This is my cue to be shocked, angry and, indeed, fly around in howler monkey outrage.

You? You do not get to be shocked and appalled. No no you don’t. Surprised? Yes, you can be surprised. Embarrassed? Oh yes you sure as hello can be embarrassed. Apologetic? Hell yeah we can have a double order of that!

Shocked and disbelieving? Not so much. Especially on the disbelieving. Honestly, you’re acting like you walked in on us feeding baby dragons or something. What was happening was not impossible, unbelievable or completely beyond the realm of anything you could imagine was possible. Or, at least, it shouldn’t have been.

When I moved in with Beloved, what, 7ish years ago now? (I’m not sure myself when the ‘uni room mates’ because ’room mates who started dating’ became ‘lovers who lived together’) I don’t know what you thought we were doing. Playing tiddly winks? Your gay son was living together with his gay room mate and we were dating and in love. For years. Astonishingly, part of that wonderful loving relationship included sex!

Nor can I imagine what you thought we were doing when we actually got married. I know you know, you were there. Remember the distinct obsession so many of you had with putting damn flowers everywhere (for the record, I still hate cut flowers. I do not understand why anyone would see something so beautiful and natural and decide to kill it and put it in a vase and watch it rot). You know this isn’t a platonic friendship. And while not every relationship is sexual, there have been more than enough hints over the years to make it clear that ours most certainly is.

See, I knew to respect you as sexual, adult beings when I was a teenager. I gave you space, I knew better than to walk in anywhere without announcing my presence. I never saw anything and I took pains not to do so – to respect your space and your life because (unusually considering the average teen’s reluctance to consider their parents having sex) I was aware of the activities you were probably doing. I was aware you needed your boundaries respected. I think it’s not to much to ask to be accorded the same respect in my own damn house.

I am the person who should be angry here. This level of shock and horror from you is unwarranted, ridiculously excessive and rather irritating. Please to be stopping now and do expect many guilt trips.

sparkindarkness: (STD)

This piece originally appeared at Womanist Musings where Renee has very generously allowed my random musings to appear on her excellent blog

This is probably going to be less reasoned than my average post. Largely because it comes from a whole lot of anger that has roiled in me.

I am so very tired of being told how to be me. I am tired of being told how to be a man. I am tired of being told how to be gay. I am tired of being afraid of “doing it wrong” and I deeply regret the foolish things I’ve done in the past in an attempt to “conform” to some standard.

I am a man. All I need is what is in my head that tells me I am male. I am not any less of a man because I am gay. Yes I’m short and yes I’m slight. I’m not going to bulk up in the gym because it would look awful on me. My slight stature doesn’t make me less manly. I’m not going to cut my long hair to fit some narrow definition of what a man is supposed to be, because men don‘t have long hair.

I like to look good, though I eschew fashion labels, I’m not going to wear stained rags because it’s somehow more “manly” to look like a tramp. I’m not going to pretend interest in sport (well, any sport that doesn’t involve speedos anyway) because that’s what “real men” do. I’m not going to be fascinated by DIY or sports cars or power tools and I still think BBQs are a damned inefficient way of cooking. I will not feign interest in “manly” things to conform to how a man “should“ be.

I look back and regret the times I avoided cooking – because a man didn’t cook and if I cooked it would be proof of how gay men weren‘t real men. I regret the tedious hours I spent trying to garner the slightest interest in sports – because I feared failing as a man. I remember the endless doubt and shame about my clothes, about my appearance about my hobbies. I wouldn’t discuss my taste in music, even with close friends, for fear that my taste would reveal me to be less than a true man, that it would show that I was the homo, the poof, the queer, the fag.

I reject a ridiculously narrow standard of what it means to be a man. I reject that a man must meet these foolish, harmful standards. And when I don’t meet that standard, it’s not because I’m gay. It’s not because a gay man is less of a man. My “effeminate” or “less manly” behaviour or tastes most certainly does not somehow prove some trait about gay men everywhere. I am my own person and it is an absurdity to infer anything about other gay men by my actions.

I am a gay man. The fact I am a man solely attracted to other men, and that I identify as gay is enough to make me a gay man.  I am not any less gay because I am not flamboyant enough. I am not closeting myself because I don’t wear glitter or rainbows or pink (pink? I look AWFUL in pink). I am not refusing to embrace my gayness by not wanting to wear drag. My monogamous life and preference for monogamy is not some kind of betrayal of what it means to be GBLT. It doesn’t make me a wanna-be heterosexual. My domestic partnership (gah I hate that ridiculous term – my MARRIAGE as it should be) doesn’t make me somehow not truly gay.

I am gay by all pertinent definition. Trying to force us into a horrendously narrow box of a series of connected stereotypes is damaging and insulting to all of us. We are more than this, we are greater than this – we run the full range of all things human. You can’t squeeze us into a tiny box – we don’t fit and you’ll hide so much of us – that which you don’t cut away to force us in.

I am a gay man. By definition I am doing it right – both being gay and being male. Because that is WHO I am. You can’t tell me someone else does it better, knows it better or that I am somehow doing it wrong. I can’t get being me wrong.

I don’t need instructions for being me.

And all being me tells you about… is me. No-one else. Just me.

sparkindarkness: (STD)

I nearly forgot my annual valentines day rant! This is a good thing, it means I haven’t been assaulted by saccharine pink banners and cutesy heart and cherubs and all the rest of the eye abuse that assaults me this time of year.

Still, rant I shall! I hate Valentines – let me count the ways!

Firstly, even Hallowe’en has more actual sincerity of a holiday than this one. I think it’s on par with Mother’s/Father’s day in the running for “holiday most blatantly created by the greetings card industry to make you spend money.” Sure it had a history – but it’s a Hallmark Holiday. And florists and chocolatiers hike their prices to ridiculous degrees to take advantage of that

Secondly, it’s heteronormative as hell. The straightness oozes from this holiday and its depictions. For far too damn long it has been another big flagship of proper straight relationships that I am not part of. It’s only recently that gays, bis and lesbians have been given the nod – and even then that’s due to there being gold in them thar gays more than anything else.

Thirdly, the tubby baby with aerodynamically challenged wings has to be the WORST depiction of a love/sex/fertility deity in the history of the world. Seriously – I say yet again, if you’re going to use Eros/Cupid like this it’d be 100 times better for him to be some fine piece of prime man meat. Because Psyche didn’t wander round the world for no damn baby (and yes, Greeks and Romans portrayed him as a YOUTH but that WAS the depiction of gorgeous male beauty for many back then).

Fourthly – it’s meaningless. For the 10 thousandth time – there is absolutely NOTHING romantic about a mandatory gesture demanded by society. Giving gifts at this time isn’t a sign that you care or have remembered something important or great romance – it’s a sign that you are performing a societal obligation. It has no meaning because it’s demanded. Romance comes from doing something for someone because you care about them, because they matter to you. Not because society demands an overpriced card, some straggly garage flowers and some dramatically named chocolates in early February. Obligation is not romantic.

Of course we can all look forward to the real holiday – CHEAP CHOCOLATE DAY!!!!!!!!!

sparkindarkness: (Default)
Ann Somerville Tweeted me a link that amused me muchly

It's a rather long, dry interview of a Mr. Philip Roth (no idea who that is, for the record), most of which I didn't read and didn't care about. No, the killer line was:

What do popular writers such as James Patterson and Nora Roberts have that attracts such huge numbers of readers?

I don't know their books. They are entertainers. They aren't writers

We'll leave, for a moment, the grossly ridiculous idea of judging their work while at the same time you don't know their books. Srsly? Judging a book without even seeing the cover! Bravo

No no, I am much more amused by the "They are entertainers. They aren't writers."

They write books. Isn't this the definition of a writer? And is there a reason why an entertainer is not a writer?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I rather suspect 90%+ of all fiction writers out there are entertainers. I'm sure 99.9% of all fiction readers out there read to be entertained. In fact, I will even go as far to say that entertainment is 80% of the POINT of fiction. I'm pretty certain when William Shakespeare, the Brontes, Chaucer, Jane Austen and even Charles Dickings put pen to paper they did so to entertain (though if you are entertained by a Dickens novel there's something wrong with you).

Can fiction do other things? Sure it can educate, it can move, it can inspire, it can inform, it can be uplifting and it can be deeply depressing. But ultimately, it's a diversion, it's leisure it's *gasp* entertainment! It reminds me of those awfully pretentious people who inist that true LITERATURE has to be dreadfully dreadfully dull (like Dickens) and reading it must be WORK (*cough*Dickens*cough*)

Am I horribly crass and shallow here? I mean my shelves are full of books that I own purely for my own amusement. I will even, *gasp* STOP READING A BOOK THAT FAILS TO ENTERTAIN ME! Am I terribly common and crude for such terrible tastes?
sparkindarkness: (Default)
It amuses me that both Jan Moir and Nick Griffin have both claimed something very similar.

Jan Moir is convinced there is an orchestrated campaign of a liberal cabal attacking her (possibly lead by Stephen Fry - HAIL STEPHEN!)

Nick Griffin is spitting his dummie out and stamping his feet because he thinks he was ambushed at Question Time and it was organised to be biased against him.

Well, here's a news flash kiddies - there's no conspiracy, no cabal, no slanted bias, not attempt to tip the scales against you.

You're just awful people.

Jan Moir - you wrote a disgustingly homophobic article that was grossly offensive and truly repugnant to read. It didn't take a cabal or an organisation to drag you down - you wrote something so horrible that that many people were offended by it. Simple as. Yes, they did read it (she's taken to claiming no-one has read it) and it was offensive and repellent. No organisation, no bias, no campaign needed - thousands of people read your article and were disgusted. Because it was disgusting. Simple, isn't it?

Nick Griffin - everyone at Question Time focused on you. Everyone hated you. Everyone asked hard questions and everyone attacked you and made you look like a fool

This wasn't because it was set up to be biased. It is because they all hated you. The audience. The panelists. The presenter. Hells, I bet the film crew and the boy that brought the coffee hated you too. You're a loathsome person representing a loathsome party espousing loathsome views. They piled on you because their hatred of you outweighed ANY political differences they may have had with each other. Their hatred of you outweighed any other political discussions they may have wanted to have. Because you are that awful, that repugnant and that objectionable a person and represent a party that is all that and more that it outweighs anything else. To them it was either attack you or ignore you as not worth their time.

They didn't have to go out their way to an audience who hated you. MOST PEOPLE DO. For the BBC to have picked out a sizeable number of BNP supporters in the audience (which means finding people who are both BNP supporters AND willing to go on national television displaying themselves as such) they would have had to expressly worked to create a bias FOR the BNP. As it was they had an extremely diverse cross section of British society. And most of that hates you, Griffin. But the, you hate most of them as well.

We don't need to organise against you. You're vile enough to inspire opposition without it.
sparkindarkness: (Default)
Waaay back here when I ranted about how homosexuals are depicted by the media?

Well here is a great vid linked to by Renee at Womanist Musings about that very subject

Is this better than invisibility? Is it better to be a collection of freak shows and stereotypes? Or, so wonderfully, to be the lifeless side kick for straight women - gods forbid the gay guy having a life that doesn’t involve her. SO much so that a HOMOSEXUAL MAN will end up in bed with her?

For young gays growing up today is it better to have no depictions at all of homosexuals or these sad tropes and stereotypes? Better yet - let’s not make it an either/or choice. Can we have sensible, sane depictions of us please (and that means all of us - including Lesbians that aren’t sex toys for straight men, Bissexuals who aren’t promiscuous sex maniacs and some mature, sensible depictions of trans people) because at the moment the fact a programme has a gay character usually makes me change the channel.

And it spills over into real life. You trawl through my archives and you’ll find me complaining about women who seem to think I’m some kind of agony uncle. AND people asking extremely personal and offensive questions (seriously, since when is it acceptable for an acquaintance to question me on my intimate sex acts?). Can we please have the media treating us as people and not caricatures or accessories.

Wow Rantage

Jul. 2nd, 2009 03:17 pm
sparkindarkness: (Default)
Blizzard, I love WOTLK on many unnatural levels, but this is beginning to irritate.

First and foremost - Vault of Achavon. I hate this. I hate this place more than words can describe. I hated it before but now I hate it 10 times more since you NERFED Emalon (YE GODS, WHY?! Why not just replace the whole damn raid with a BIIIIIIG button that drops free Tier 8.5 on face-rollers?)

Seriously, we have alts in the guild I would be wary of taking to Naxx, who are so poorly geared I would giggle at them asking to come to a Malygos raid - but they have got tier 8.5 gloves. 8.5 gloves Blizzard. They drop from Mimiron. Y’know? The guy that causes PTSD on all raiders that try him?!

And that’s from the pve perspective. I can’t imagine the pvpers are any happier at seeing some power levelled, ebaying noob running around with Furious Leggings of Pwnage that dropped from your free epic giver.

Dropping the highest level gear from a boss that makes PATCHWORK and RAZUVIOUS look challenging is more than a little annoying.

And now the word is that badges of conquest - with which we can buy runic orbs and tier 8.5 - are going to drop in Heroic Instances?! What are you smoking?! You’re completely devaluing the higher end instances! It’s getting ridiculous and very annoying. I remember a sense of achievement and sparkly happiness in my tier 6 - and double that for my tier 3. But tier 8.5? Donald the Facer-roller can get tier 8.5

And while I’m at it - while I agree some things in Ulduar needed.... adjusting (Ignis the first time we went in was obscene) the repeated layered nerfs that followed were silly. Razorscale and Deconstructor and Assembly all had multiple nerfs - AFTER we killed them and were a little bemused as to WHY you nerfed them. We one shotted Razorscale the first time we fought it - and then it needed nerfing? *is confused.* I suppose it’s one way to make Vault of Achavon more fair - nerf Ulduar to the same level. Please please please don’t.

While I’m on the rant - can we have more raids? I don’t mean higher raids - I mean equal raids. In TBC raids came in pairs. You had Gruul/Magtheridon, Serpentshrine Cavern/Tempest Keep and Black Temple/Mount Hyjal. It worked. It meant you weren’t spending all week, every week in the same damn raid time and time and time again. I like that every raid has a 10 man version now - but between the 10 man and the 25 man you can get miiiiighty sick of Ulduar (and Naxx for that matter).

*has finished ranting for now*
sparkindarkness: (Default)
Even though I don't drink them (yet I always have a bottle or 2 of 20 year old malts for guests) is a very useful site for quick and lazy gift giving.

But your new site not being compatible with firefox? C'mon guys that's like text book marketing fail. It's not like firefox is obscure!
sparkindarkness: (Default)
Sacha Baron-Cohen..


If you are not gay, do not pretend to be gay so you can get some laughs. It’s bloody ANNOYING. As I’ve said frequently before but never here. So let me be clear on who very very VERY much I loathe it when straight people pretend to be gay for entertainment purposes

We pretend to be straight to just MANAGE and these people pretend to be gay for fun? Most of us have spent some time in the closet. Most of us hide at least some of the time. Most of us are forced to create a false persona on some level - we're FORCED to lie about ourselves - and to see these people lying about being gay to make money out of it... it annoys. We don't get to go home and say "just kidding." We don't get to be part-time gay when it suits us and when it benefits us. We don't get to turn it on and off and assume gayness when it's convenient. We use lies to survive, hiding, subverting our identity and these people do it and assume our identity for money?

It's a mockery. Some of us go through hell to be who and what we are and these people want to play in the shallow end of our pool while we dodge the sharks? Oh, and while paddling along watching us dodge sharks they use their presence in the pool to try profit? Of course, always been ready to get out the pool if the water gets cold or some storms start swirling in.

So, Sacha Baron-Cohen, with your ridiculous “Bruno” character, get the fuck out of our pool. You’re not one of us and you don’t get to pretend to be without pissing people off.

ESPECIALLY since the only way straight “entertainers” can manage to portray a clearly gay character is by stringing together a series of utterly insulting stereotypes and then treating us to a “fabulous” caricature. Yeah. Thanks for that.

What? You made this character to point out people’s homophobia? Assumed it out of irony? Well, sorry, you can’t. You CAN’T appropriate the silly ideas straight people have about us because they are YOUR IDEAS. You ARE straight. You CANNOT appropriate the oppressor’s language when YOU ARE THE OPPRESSOR. You don’t get to play that game.

Don’t you realise? You’re not a social commentator LAUGHING at the idiotic things straight people believe. You’re a group of straight people laughing at US and the idiotic and insulting ideas idea you have perpetuated about us.

And now your latest stunt with Eminem? Detailed here

“Bruno” is suspended over the audience as a half-naked gay angel in a skirt and jock strap (ye gods!) who falls onto Eminem in such a way that his naked arse and jock-strap clad balls are thrust into Eminem’s face.

Gods, do I have to go into how wrong this is? I don’t care how vilely homophobia Eminem is, you shoved your head in his lap and your arse and groin in his face. That’s called sexual assault and that’s NEVER acceptable.

And extra points for perpetuating that idiot idea that all gay men are predators just looking to ravish every straight man we meet. Do you have ANY idea how many gay men are assaulted, beaten and even bloody KILLED because of straight folk’s gay panic? It’s even been used as a LEGAL defence. Thank you for feeding into the idiot paranoia that sends so many of us to hospital. Thanks a whole fucking bunch.
sparkindarkness: (Default)
However, random fishing slapping, while infinitely satisfying, is not especially productive.

Which pretty much sums up what I feel about the game of Oppression Olympics and the unpleasant sniping between oppressed groups at each other.

After the stupid comments made by some massive idiots after the proposition 8 fiasco basically blaming black people (fanned and inflamed by right wingers who just loved it so much) many sensible people turned round and said “that’s racist bullshit, you’re talking through your arse cheeks.” Which was right and proper.

And some people decided that this was indicative of racism in the gay community and the gay community’s leaders (whoever THEY are) and one blogger even decided to quote a piece that LAMBLASTED gay groups for giving black people a “stunning pass” on opposing gay marriage. It was written by Andrew Breitbart - STRAIGHT right winger and contributor to the Drudge Report and guest-host of Michael Savage’s Savage Nation. Yet it was held up as some kind of example of the gay community’s racism? This makes sense how?

And then on the flip side we have a blogger posting about Marion Barry. Marion Barry is a councilman for Washington DC and the only one who voted against recognising same-sex marriages from other states - his reasons being that most of his constituents are black and he says black people just won’t accept gay marriage, are adamant about that and “all hell would break loose” and it would cause “a civil war.” The blogger spoke about homophobia in the black community, and the social conservatism of blacks etc etc.

The sad thing is I am a regular reader of both bloggers and I agree with 99.999999999% of everything they write. But the way they both wrote about this is making me despair.

Read more... )
sparkindarkness: (Default)
About the Tories.

Now, there’s a lot of things that bug me about the Tories. I hate Labour’s current incarnation but it’s nothing compared to my loathing of the Tory party. It’s like the difference between the Flu and the Ebola Virus - while I can’t abide the flu, I’ll take it over bleeding from every orifice.

So, there are many things I loath about the Tories - but recently one has been niggling at me more and more.

The Tories treat politics like a game. They play it to score points. Now, to a degree every party does it - but the Tories try to score points no matter what. I think this can be particularly seen by the Labour policies they oppose so very vehemently:

ID cards, long periods of detention before trial (and the ridiculous dramatics surrounding their protest on that one), the Ghurkhas (despite Tory immigration stance), the DNA database...

Now I despise the government position on all of these things. But they are TORY policies. These are EXACTLY the positions they would take and have taken in the past. Rabid anti-immigration positions, loathsome human rights slashing, ridiculously disproportionate law and order proposals. These are Tory policies, Tory positions and at any other time they’d be waving pompoms and cheerleading them through Parliament (how’s THAT for a mental image?)

And it infuriates me. I mean, I’m glad that these vile policies are opposed - but the fact the Tories aren’t even true to their own rotten principles just solidifies my contempt for the whole party. The Lib Dems don’t pull crap like that - they may not have a clue where they stand on any issue, but when they DO finally have a policy, they stand by it.


sparkindarkness: (Default)

April 2015

262728 2930  


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags