Armchair Generals and Delusions of Grandeur and Normal People and Racists and Werthers Original Imperialists17 Dec 2009 01:51 pm
By Alex

We’ve decided to divvy up the gay execution thread, just because there is so much fail of so many sorts to go round.

These people are just human beings like any other. The only difference is they choose to live a different kind of life. We should not discriminate them from others. They have the same rights like every body else. Such laws are very retrogresive and create acrimony for nothing. We should learn to have respect and appreciate other persons lifestyle. We can not all have the same lifestyle. The way we differ in appearance is the same way we differ in thinking.

AUBREY CHINDEFU, LUSAKA ZAMBIA

Aside from minor typos and the fact that it’d do as much good to the world if Aubrey Chindefu had drawn a picture of a walrus on the screen in marker pen, this is an intelligent, reasoned and eloquent comment. I even had to look up ‘acrimony’ and I’m like, really clever. It reminds us, if we needed reminding, that Africa is a huge and diverse place, and the gulfs of opinion can be as wide between two next-door neighbours as they can between Cape Town and Tripoli. Of course, at the close of play, this had all of 3 recommendations because, on the subject of whether Africans should be killing Africans for having the wrong bum-sex with Africans, HYSers aren’t really interested in the African perspective. Not when they could be telling savage, childlike foreigners what to do, anyway.

Are they serious? Seriously? When the rest of the world is trying so hard to recognise Africa as civilized, why do they have to shoot themselves in the foot like this?

licoriceallsorts, candyland

You fucking idiot Africa.

What a barbaric and ignorant proposition. If Africa wants help from the west then I see no reason why we should not attatch some cultural conditions to that aid.

Killing someone because of a personal and private choice is medieval and reflects the emotional immaturity of African socieities. The West needs to stand firm against rubbish like this. If Ugandans want to oppress minorities with death threats then they can ask the Chinese for billions in aid instead, and see how far they get.

A shocked gay man, uk

I understand you’re shocked, shocked gay man, but do you really think stopping Africa’s pocket money will help? With something as extreme as executing gays it should be a simple case of “grow up or get a smacked botty”.

“Nations do not have a right to execute homosexuals,”

Yes they do. They can kill whoever they want. Fortunately we have bigger guns than them, and should currently be sabre rattling.

Matt, Manchester

Hang on Matt, surely a sabre’s a bit excessive. Maybe just pull Uganda’s pants down and use the flat of your hand. Or bomb it from the skies a bit, whichever works for you.

This is a difficult situation to comment on because, as a white person, I know I should be polite when I talk about black people, mindful of 100s of years of European oppression.

But, while generally respecting black people as a race and a culture, I can only describe the Ugandan politicians who are supporting this bill as primitive, superstitious barbarians.

I hope all the decent Ugandans do not allow their country to become synonymous with violent stupidity. Reject this bill

Rocket Scientist

Congratulations. You’re like, the least racist person on HYS. In fact, I’ve made you a special plaque in the form of a very small swastika.

I’m going to end on another sensible comment because we need to remain positive in the face of such massive, massive bollocks. It works best if you picture Ibraheem Hameed as the scatty but amiable vicar of a small country parish, haring into the church and vaulting onto the pulpit to gabble this short comment at breakneck speed, before dashing off to be somewhere else ten minutes ago and leaving his glasses behind.

Death penalty or whichever kind of sanction it may be for homosexual act, the poor masses suffer from it. It is not an act of murder or it like therefore, let them do what they think is good for them. For all of us are sinners.

Ibraheem Hameed, Khartoum

Cast first stone. Forgiveness. Amen. A sermon for the twitter generation.

81 Responses to “Gays vs. Darkies Round 2”

  1. on 17 Dec 2009 at 2:03 pm Clovis Sangrail

    But, while generally respecting black people as a race and a culture

    Bless – I can imagine how difficult that was to write. At the risk of another conversation breaking out I just don’t get why homosexuality bothers people – it’s just sex. Sex isn’t just about getting pregnant. And are all of HYS against sex? Probably. My thesis founders…

  2. on 17 Dec 2009 at 2:17 pm millie

    I see no reason why we should not attatch some cultural conditions to that aid.

    Clue as to the author’s true identity methinks.

  3. on 17 Dec 2009 at 2:21 pm That Bloke in the Corner

    Fortunately we have bigger guns than them, and should currently be sabre rattling.
    Matt, Manchester

    Like we can afford another war-does Uganda have any oil? It does? Only a little? OK, we can afford a small war but it won’t be about Oil ok?,It will be to protect the rights of Ugandan Bumders or something, no Oil involved whatsoever, pass me my sabre so I can give it a good rattle-happy now Matt from Manchester

  4. on 17 Dec 2009 at 2:32 pm Jim

    Hang on. With that last one, you’re just taking the piss out of a foreigner for not speaking English properly.

  5. on 17 Dec 2009 at 2:47 pm ladyjulian

    But, while generally respecting black people as a race and a culture

    Apart from the basic respect of recognising the many different races and cultures within your sweeping generalisation of ‘black,’ that is?

  6. on 17 Dec 2009 at 2:48 pm john Adair's Gerbil

    If we have bigger guns, should we not be cocking them, instead of rattling sabers?

  7. on 17 Dec 2009 at 2:51 pm That Bloke in the Corner

    If we have bigger guns, should we not be cocking them, instead of rattling sabers?

    It’s the rattle the fuzzy wuzzies don’t like, they don’t like it up ‘em at all.

  8. on 17 Dec 2009 at 2:52 pm StealthBadger

    Dear god no. It’s the cocking that the Ugandans are irate about to start with.

  9. on 17 Dec 2009 at 2:56 pm My Foot Hurts.

    Jim

    Hang on. With that last one, you’re just taking the piss out of a foreigner for not speaking English properly.

    Fair’s fair. We take the piss out of non-furriners for that all the time.

  10. on 17 Dec 2009 at 3:05 pm Aye

    Someone should bring the Ugandan minister responsible for this outrage to Britain, educate the man, and convert him to Christianity.

    Wait…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bahati

  11. on 17 Dec 2009 at 3:09 pm pigfrottage

    This wins the Catherine Oliver award on the BA Strike thread:

    http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&forumID=7343&edition=1&ttl=20091217135944&#paginator

    “Added: Monday, 14 December, 2009, 14:29 GMT 14:29 UK

    No, it will not affect me as I am staying here for Christmas.

    I’m alright Jack !!

    Merry Christmas Everybody.

    Sporting Fanatic, London, United Kingdom

    Recommended by 126 people

  12. on 17 Dec 2009 at 3:10 pm Rotwatcher

    Cast first stone. Forgiveness. Amen. A sermon for the twitter generation.

    Truelol. Most recommended.

  13. on 17 Dec 2009 at 3:40 pm Ugly Newt

    These people are just human beings like any other. The only difference
    is they choose to live a different kind of life. We should not
    discriminate them from others. [...]

    Aside from minor typos and the fact that it’d do as much good to the world
    if Aubrey Chindefu had drawn a picture of a walrus on the screen in marker
    pen, this is an intelligent, reasoned and eloquent comment.

    …apart from the bit where it perpetuates the myth that homosexuality is a choice. But I’ll forgive that oversight if the picture was of a bisexual walrus, flipping a coin to decide which way to swing tonight.

  14. on 17 Dec 2009 at 3:42 pm Chris

    Enjoy http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/oh_no_its_making_well_reasoned

  15. on 17 Dec 2009 at 3:47 pm SupremeBeard

    Hi there.. long time reader, first time poster.. love your work.. yadda yadda..

    I felt I had to share something, after laughing heartily at Ryhs Jaggers email and responses (comments ad passism or summat), and reignite what I find to be an important debate.

    My beard is awesome, and joined up, and has been since I was 26.

    I too find myself comparing beards, but have never felt inferior. There is no beard envy, but plenty of healthy respect for those more voluminous than my own.

    I do, however, feel superior to any man who does not have a beard. I find them slightly odd looking, and certainly lacking in something.

    Growing a beard is, and I feel strongly about this, something every man should do at least once in his life.

  16. on 17 Dec 2009 at 4:01 pm That Bloke in the Corner

    Growing a beard is, and I feel strongly about this, something every man should do at least once in his life.

    Unless having a beard is a sign of homosexuality in Uganda, then if the bill gets through it will be something you will do once in your life.

  17. on 17 Dec 2009 at 4:04 pm funny peculiar

    the scene: Sunset. A hillside in southern Italy. The gay revolt has failed and the battle-weary gay army sits dejected; captured; humiliated… Suddenly, one man leaps to his feet, he throws his shoulders back and declares in a defiant voice “I’m A Shocked Gay Man and I claim my five pounds!”

    Cos that’s my post that is! :-) And I’m proud of it! I knew an appeal to HYS’s moral high-mindedness would not work without a subliminal stoking of their venal gland. So I mixed my outrage at the Ugandan Bill (which is genuine) with some HYS-bait about scrounging foriegners who don’t deserve aid. And it won HYS and SYB! Top banana!

    So I are made of WIN! Heh! Heh! Heh!

  18. on 17 Dec 2009 at 4:05 pm millie

    Talking of arses, I do like Nick Griffin’s twitter style:

    shopping at Westfield. held onto a shit for so long that by the time i got to a lavatory, my arse had digested it.

    Luuuverly.

  19. on 17 Dec 2009 at 4:06 pm SupremeBeard

    Back on topic in one.. good work ;0)

  20. on 17 Dec 2009 at 4:07 pm therika

    Unless having a beard is a sign of homosexuality in Uganda

    Intrestingly enough, the correlation between “having a beard” and “not having a female partner” is about the same as the correlation between “being a homosexual male” and “not having a female partner”. So you could be onto something there.

  21. on 17 Dec 2009 at 4:07 pm john Adair's Gerbil

    Well done funny.

  22. on 17 Dec 2009 at 4:07 pm Clovis Sangrail

    I was distracted by the Ugandans for a day and my beard grew within 24 hrs – THAT’S how supreme MY beard is. Just shaved it off and I am too knackered to start on the back and upper arm hair for now.

  23. on 17 Dec 2009 at 4:07 pm mr fruit

    “If Africa wants help from the west then I see no reason why we should not attatch some cultural conditions to that aid.”

    What, like the Catholic Church in New York threatening to withdraw their soup kitchens if they were forced to be nice to the gays?

  24. on 17 Dec 2009 at 4:12 pm Clovis Sangrail

    FP – you scamp!

  25. on 17 Dec 2009 at 4:14 pm millie

    *blush* just realised the Real Nick Griffin isn’t the real Nick Griffin. Think I need to up my medication.

  26. on 17 Dec 2009 at 4:31 pm Cropped trousers

    It’s all completely all right again. Auntie Beeb (bless ‘er!) has apologised.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/dec/17/bbc-apologises-homosexuals-executed-headline

    So it really is all completely all right again.

  27. on 17 Dec 2009 at 4:43 pm james lee burke

    Fuck me BBC in Spades dont like Bandits revelation!!! Next, the world is round etc… etc…

  28. on 17 Dec 2009 at 4:50 pm Mim

    Oh yes. Taken out of context. Good one. My apologies for my mindless rage.

  29. on 17 Dec 2009 at 4:59 pm Harriieee

    I was about to mail this one yo SYB. How naive of me to think that a gem like this would have passed them by.

  30. on 17 Dec 2009 at 5:03 pm Alex

    Hang on. With that last one, you’re just taking the piss out of a foreigner for not speaking English properly.

    Nah, I was mildly ribbing a foreigner for being really, really succinct and sounding a bit parsonly.

    apart from the bit where it perpetuates the myth that homosexuality is a choice

    It IS a choice. It’s just not MUCH of a choice, given as the other options are “frustrated celibacy” and “loveless sham-marriage”.

  31. on 17 Dec 2009 at 5:10 pm Alex

    Intrestingly enough, the correlation between “having a beard” and “not having a female partner” is about the same as the correlation between “being a homosexual male” and “not having a female partner”. So you could be onto something there.

    I thought that if you were a homosexual male, a “beard” was a female partner.

  32. on 17 Dec 2009 at 5:34 pm james lee burke

    Gotta love this site, some cunt actually posts a link to the Guardian without being ironic. Priceless.

  33. on 17 Dec 2009 at 5:41 pm EviltheCat

    Gotta love this site, some cunt actually posts a link to the Guardian without being ironic. Priceless.

    Yes, but did you realise that James Lee Burke is an anagram of Twat? True.

  34. on 17 Dec 2009 at 7:03 pm Mal

    Today’s topic: Should Peter Horrocks have a red-hot knitting needle inserted in his urethra?

    Sorry if that seems a bit stark but it’s what posters in SYB (well this one) are proposing so, taken in context, it’s an absolutely legitimate question.

  35. on 17 Dec 2009 at 7:55 pm john Adair's Gerbil

    “loveless sham-marriage”

    Hey, that’s my dad you’re talking about there, take it back…

    By all accounts, not the happiest of people, allegedly had “proper” sex three times in his life. I have 2 sisters, work it out for yourselves.

  36. on 17 Dec 2009 at 8:00 pm john Adair's Gerbil

    Mind you, with a strike rate like that, we could be out-bred by homosexuals within weeks! Barring the problem of them not liking the whole opposite sex thing.

    So, in order to ensure that the British Way of Life(tm) isn’t overrun by the Gay Mafia, we should postivily encourage homosexuality. Between homosexuals initialy, I suppose, but, if it means the England’s Green and Pleasant Land is saved from danger, it might be expanded later.

  37. on 17 Dec 2009 at 8:45 pm Jack

    No, Alex, homosexuality isn’t a choice. Having sex with someone of the same sex is a choice.

  38. on 17 Dec 2009 at 9:28 pm Pirate Pete

    Jack, you are a troll and I claim my five pink pounds!

    Re Alex’s remark on ‘beard’ terminology, perhaps we should call the hairy facial appendage a ‘real beard’ to limit the confusion…

    I’ll get my coat (the one with santa picked out in sequins on the back)

  39. on 17 Dec 2009 at 9:44 pm Mim

    But Jack is, um, right.

    I’m confused now.

  40. on 17 Dec 2009 at 9:45 pm funny peculiar

    This is a difficult situation to comment on because, as a white person, I know I should be polite when I talk about black people, mindful of 100s of years of European oppression.

    But, while generally respecting black people as a race and a culture, I can only describe the Ugandan politicians who are supporting this bill as primitive, superstitious barbarians.

    I hope all the decent Ugandans do not allow their country to become synonymous with violent stupidity. Reject this bill

    Rocket Scientist

    OK, I realise I may be sticking my coconut out of the trench with a bullseye painted on it, but I can’t see too much wrong with this?!? Grouping all black cultures together as one culture was ham-fisted, and generally it’s a bit clumsy, but where’s the beef? Aren’t we allowed to refer to black, homicidal homophobes as primitive, superstitious barbarians?

  41. on 17 Dec 2009 at 10:30 pm Arglebargle

    It is fine except it regards black people as a seperate single culture, which is stupid rather than racist in the context of this post.
    Primative superstitious barbarians come in all colours.

  42. on 17 Dec 2009 at 10:58 pm Vicky

    I know I’m wading into a proper alligator-infested swamp of a debate here, but it depends on whether we’re talking about the inherent, unchosen state of homosexuality or using the word in a performative sense, to describe a set of actions (the only thing you can be persecuted for, in practice).
    Aubrey Chindefu actually said, “they choose to live a different kind of life”, which is perfectly accurate.

  43. on 17 Dec 2009 at 11:06 pm Ed aka Cuger-Jaggar

    @Vicky

    So in your little world:

    * hetros can follow their sexual urges and that’s not worthy of comment but in fact natural, good and pure
    * gays can’t, as if they do it’s unnatural or at least worthy of comment

    Why should they be treated any differently at all?

  44. on 17 Dec 2009 at 11:09 pm Olivia

    Plus the dutiful recitation of his obligations “as a white person” and cautiously-worded profession of tolerance for people who aren’t, thus making a show of reserving judgement and doing the right thing so that if the bill does pass, the frothing racist inside can burst through the liberal veneer like the Hulk and claim that he tried his damnedest to “generally respect black people as a race and culture” and what did they do? Just threw it back in his face. After he SPECIFICALLY TOLD them not to pass this law. Well, no more free passes, blacks. You had your chance. You won’t have Rocket Scientist to kick around any more.

    I’m guessing.

  45. on 17 Dec 2009 at 11:13 pm Olivia

    Pretend that comment came right after Arglebargle’s and that I’m not very slow at organizing my thoughts.

  46. on 17 Dec 2009 at 11:19 pm Clovis Sangrail

    It’s all getting a bit clever now. Where’s Topsy? Where’s Rhys Jaggar? Where’s the Cugeramadingdong to save us from ourselves?

  47. on 17 Dec 2009 at 11:19 pm Jack

    …wait, I’m a troll? I’m confused too, Mim… Pretty sure I didn’t make any choices about being queer when I woke up this morning. Knew I forgot something…

  48. on 17 Dec 2009 at 11:32 pm Mal

    You’re forgetting that for most HYSers the only sex they have the option to choose is with Widow Palm and her five daughters.

  49. on 17 Dec 2009 at 11:50 pm funny peculiar

    Do trolls have beards?

  50. on 18 Dec 2009 at 12:45 am Bit Special AKA La Spesh

    I think we need to know what the BNP think about this whole ‘death to bummers’ issue – which one of their kneejerk prejudices will win out: the opportunity to support killing innocent people for what they get up to in the privacy of their own bedroom or a free chance to slag off the darkies? It must be like a bumper Cadbury’s Selection Box* to them. Or maybe just too confusing to cope with – I have an Irish Sikh friend who always says racists leave him alone as soon as they hear his Belfast accent because they’re too thick to cope with the option of 2 things to harass him about.

    *So long as Cadbury’s stays Ingerlish, of course.

    PS Curse you Alex for beating me to the ‘beard’ punchline!
    PPS Well done FP, you scallywag you :)

  51. on 18 Dec 2009 at 12:53 am Alex

    No, Alex, homosexuality isn’t a choice. Having sex with someone of the same sex is a choice.

    That’s very true, but it’s also entirely irrelevant, as the whole point of the law being debated is to punish homosexual acts.

    Unless I’ve got the wrong end of the stick here. Unless the law will also give prison sentences for “thinking about gay sex and getting a twitch-on” and “attempted homosexual urges”, or you can be acquitted if you say you screwed up your eyes really tightly and pretend it’s a girl.

    Besides, as a lot of sensible people have pointed out, Aubrey was quite specifically referring to lifestyle and not urges/orientation. Which actually IS a choice, and generally the thing that homophobes get all het up about. As far as I know, people that hate gays are fairly tolerant of homosexuals apart if they have same-sex relationships, insufficient or lacklustre opposite-sex ones, or display any effeminate/dykish in the slightest. In fact, they seem to be rather charitable to repressed and frustrated closet-cases. For some unknown reason.

  52. on 18 Dec 2009 at 1:12 am Alex

    @Vicky

    So in your little world:

    * hetros can follow their sexual urges and that’s not worthy of comment but in fact natural, good and pure
    * gays can’t, as if they do it’s unnatural or at least worthy of comment

    Why should they be treated any differently at all?

    With reading skills like yours, you’d make a great libertarian.

  53. on 18 Dec 2009 at 1:25 am Mim

    I still think the distinction is worth maintaining clearly because there is so much bollocks out there about how people choose to be gay and it’s pretty poisonous.

    And “lifestyle” is actually a fairly irksome term in this context because it has connotations of lifestyle magazines and Guardian weekend supplements and choices that are a lot more superficial than choosing between celibate or criminalised-and-possibly-dead. (Not to mention gosh-aren’t-the-gays-good-at-accessorising.)

    I’ll go back to my corner and handwring some more now.

  54. on 18 Dec 2009 at 1:28 am Vicky

    Christ on a bike!

    There is no damn argument here. Neither Alex nor I have claimed that homosexuality is a choice, nor have we advocated any kind of different treatment. I’d find it a little strange if we had said that, as neither of us hold those opinions.

    And my ‘own world’ is at least average size, I’ll have you know.

  55. on 18 Dec 2009 at 1:55 am Christ on a bike

    you called?

  56. on 18 Dec 2009 at 2:08 am Mim

    Vicky: I wouldn’t bother arguing if we actually disagreed.

  57. on 18 Dec 2009 at 3:02 am Jesus Chris

    Meanwhile, over at the pre-moderated Daily Mail article on Peter Tatchell quitting as a Green Party PPC…

    No loss here as Tatchell has alienated and removed any respect for people of his persuasion by ramming it down our throats that same sex relationships are the norm and as good for bringing up kids as hetero sexual marriages.

    - Mike, Alicante, Spain

    I love that. Please don’t ram your sexuality down my throat. It’ll be better for us both if I can just suck gently…

    He went to Moscow hoping for a beating, so it would be filmed and used for propaganda purposes..He went looking for trouble and found it.

    - Ade Groarke, London

    I’d love to see some of Ade’s comments on articles about rape.

    Are we supposed to feel sympathy? Sorry mate, but if you stick your neck out and go out of your way to provoke people you should expect a reaction.

    - Rigger, Western Australia

    Yeah, what the fucking hell is he doing campaigning for human rights and shit? What a twat.

    Jesus Christ. Really. Too easy to go for the ones who want to know why we don’t march for heterosexual rights… that much maligned, abused group – the straight people.

  58. on 18 Dec 2009 at 5:22 am one of the eds

    “If Africa wants help from the west then I see no reason why we should not attatch some cultural conditions to that aid.”

    What, like the Catholic Church in New York threatening to withdraw their soup kitchens if they were forced to be nice to the gays?

    Oh no, nothing like that. The difference, you see, is that was the Catholic Church, whereas this is us.

    They were WRONG because they have different views to us. They were being intollerant.

    We are RIGHT because we agree with ourselves. Look how tollerant we are. So tollerant that we have the moral right – nay, obligation – to make the rest of the world behave like us.

    High fives all round.

  59. on 18 Dec 2009 at 8:11 am Have Your Lurk

    Hi all. Been lurking for a while, love the site, etc., etc. all that. Well, until about 3 weeks ago that is, when it all started to get a bit silly. The reason is the source material (sorry, K, but there it is). The “seed” comments from HYS are just not as funny and stark raving bonkers as they used to be. Now we’re reduced to sifting through near-reasoned arguments to tease out little nits of blinkered racism-ness. It’s getting to the stage where we’re analysing typos, it’s almost post-modern. Are the HYS posters, like, going to night classes and learning stuff, or something? I think not…

  60. on 18 Dec 2009 at 9:32 am Jesus Chris

    Oh no, nothing like that. The difference, you see, is that was the Catholic Church, whereas this is us.

    They were WRONG because they have different views to us. They were being intollerant.

    We are RIGHT because we agree with ourselves. Look how tollerant we are. So tollerant that we have the moral right – nay, obligation – to make the rest of the world behave like us.

    High fives all round.

    Bet you a fiver they could spell “tolerant”, though.

  61. on 18 Dec 2009 at 10:19 am funny peculiar

    Look, I’m more tolerant than you are, you got that, you piece of shit?

  62. on 18 Dec 2009 at 10:22 am That Bloke in the Corner

    I can’t tolerate this toleration any more.

  63. on 18 Dec 2009 at 10:39 am Mal

    Look, it’s all very simple. I’m right,you’re wrong,now fuck off.

    If I’m right.

  64. on 18 Dec 2009 at 11:38 am Bugrat

    ..and on a lighter note, here’s an old friend popping up on CiF today to cut through the crap:

    RedRoseAndy:

    We should be discussing adopting near-zero CO2 plans in every country and the debate should be about when they must be in place. Anything less is a waste of time. The Kadir-Buxton Near-Zero CO2 Plan generates £100 billion a year to implement itself and has been around for 25 years.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/cartoon/2009/dec/18/steve-bell-copenhagen-carbon-emissions

  65. on 18 Dec 2009 at 11:49 am Jesus Chris

    http://www.kadir-buxton.com/page7.htm

    “It is difficult to get hold of all the figures necessary to show that countries can become near-zero carbon countries. However, there is a simple explanation that adequately reveals how this necessary target can be achieved.”

    I have neither the time nor the energy to explain how wrong the idea of Buxton Geothermal Turbine Generators – digging a very deep hole in the ground and filling it with water – actually is, but let me assure you, there’s only one simple thing around this concept, and that’s Andy.

  66. on 18 Dec 2009 at 12:48 pm sub Alf Ramsey's etc..

    Fuck me, it’s just turned back into a joke round here.. well let’s hope at least

  67. on 18 Dec 2009 at 1:53 pm Kelvin

    The reason is the source material (sorry, K, but there it is). The “seed” comments from HYS are just not as funny and stark raving bonkers as they used to be.

    So you’d prefer if we just made the same old jokes about the same old knee-jerk reactions all the time (yes, thank you in advance, A Million People leaping to tell us that’s what we do already)?

    We could post up everything John Adair or Topsy Turvy say and they’d be as mental, bigoted and stupid as they already were, but we’d be reduced to saying “Ha! Look at John Adair, still a ring-wing mentalist, as we told you yesterday, Tuesday and Monday!” You’d get bored reading it, and we’d get bored writing it. And it’s not like the same jokes would get any funnier (yes, thank you A Million People, see previous parentheses) if we just applied to them to people with near-identical comments but different names.

    Frankly, if all you want is a selection of the most mental comments followed by easy snark, just read the Most Recommended page of any HYS debate and supply your own. And I feel like I should make a Viz reference here so no you don’t win five pounds.

  68. on 18 Dec 2009 at 1:54 pm Kelvin

    That should of course be “right-wing mentalist” but I think given how obviously closeted and homophobic he is, “ring-wing” has a nice serendipitous feel.

  69. on 18 Dec 2009 at 2:00 pm Not a scientist

    At the worst estimate, man is responsible for 4% of global CO2. Even if we eliminated all our production (by dying!) there is still the 96% remaining. These posturing politicians enjoy their grandstanding but will hand us a very expensive and totally unnecessary bill. At last people are waking up to the scam, but will it be in time?
    - Rex, York, 17/12/2009 23:59
    Rating: 163

    He must be the daily mail’s scientific consultant

  70. on 18 Dec 2009 at 2:39 pm Have Your Lurk

    @Kelvin
    Oh, all right then. Consider me suitably cowed, horsed, sheepdogged and generally ring-winged to boot.

  71. on 18 Dec 2009 at 2:46 pm Kelvin

    I thought I was being quite gentle, all things considered…

  72. on 18 Dec 2009 at 3:03 pm My Foot Hurts.

    Just spotted this on the Why Shouldn’t They Kill Gays? thread

    I’m truly shocked that this level of bigotry can still exist.

    James, London

    Bless. Obviously his first time on HYS.

  73. on 18 Dec 2009 at 3:29 pm Clovis Sangrail

    I’m afraid that I must agree with James – I was, despite my years, shocked at the bigotry and pure fkn idiocy expressed on the kill the gays thread. Maybe the Beeb wasn’t expecting such a flood of venom and gall either. Quite depressing. Anyway – ho for Xmas and inordinate amounts of food and drink! I’ll be in Uganda next year too.

  74. on 18 Dec 2009 at 3:39 pm millie

    Maybe the Beeb wasn’t expecting such a flood of venom and gall either.

    No, I’m sure they thought they would be encouraging respectful and reasoned debate with their original question.

  75. on 18 Dec 2009 at 5:16 pm Mal

    Never mind asking “Should we Kill the Gays”, the BBC could ask the question “Are Kittens Cute or What?” and they’d still know that they’d get a flood of venom and gall from the assembled HYS fucktardary.

  76. on 18 Dec 2009 at 11:21 pm Rogue_Leader

    Primative superstitious barbarians come in all colours.

    *wince*

  77. on 18 Dec 2009 at 11:42 pm Louisa

    *Heavy, heavy sigh*

    This is the type of HYS diatribe that needs showcasing the most. Sure you have your lunatics that can barely string together a sentence, but this HYS thread is just a mess.

    I mean, following on from the previous post, it doesn’t give me much hope for the immediate future (as a gay person) that there are so many homophobes sat drooling over their keyboards at a chance to bash out a comment that totally misses the point but lets them unleash their self-important views over gay people in general.

    Then, leaping to the defence call comes a mob of “I’m not racist…..but” commenters who just want to MISS THE POINT FURTHER and go on about how we should stop sending aid to Africa (it is a fucking contitnent!) and snap all the silly little tribesmen’s spears in half.

    Then we wonder why there as so many gay people who feel trapped and unable to live their lives freely. Or why there are ethnic minorities who are still treated like ridiculous stereotypes. ARGH.

    Sorry I forgot. The most oppressed minority in the whole World is the white, straight British BNP-leaning individual.

    Absolute despair. *Facepalm*.

    Rant over!

  78. on 19 Dec 2009 at 6:49 pm Alex

    @Louisa

    You think you’ve got it bad. Just put yourself in their shoes. Imagine clicking on your favourite website and seeing the debate “Should Africans Kill Gays?”. I mean, Jesus, what a decision to have to make! Do you side with the Africans against the Gays or with the Gays against the Africans? Do you use the darkies as a stick to beat the queers with, or the queers as a stick to beat the darkies? It’s worse than when that Saudi paedo got Sharia’d to death. I couldn’t hack that, I’m sorry.

  79. on 20 Dec 2009 at 7:50 am Olivia

    You know, I’m willing to bet the whole thing was engineered by NuLabour to keep the general public from thinking independently. I mean, look at it. Gay perverts crippling poor Africa as it sruggles vainly to become a civilized countri-nent; at the same time, barbaric Africans killing their gays because they’re not evolved enough to know which rights to deny them. You actually have to employ doublethink just to make it work.

    1984 HAS BECOME REALITY
    TWO PLUS TWO IS FIVE
    GAYS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH UGANDASIA

  80. on 21 Dec 2009 at 12:26 am Deacon Lowdown

    Either Matt from Manchester can’t distinguish the words “right” and “capability” or he actually believes that might makes right. What if they had the bigger guns, would that mean we’d have to start executing homosexuals?

  81. on 21 Dec 2009 at 6:01 pm Louisa

    @Alex

    I didn’t factor that in, it’s actually a sort of beautiful irony…